Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 5 May.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Unlicensed Black Taxi System (Belfast)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take action to stop the unlicensed black taxi system in Belfast.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): All taxis operating in Belfast are licensed either as public hire or private hire taxis.

Mr. Bowis: It has long been known that the black taxi system in Belfast has provided financial support for terrorism in that city and the Province. As we now have gruesome evidence of its involvement in terrorism and in the recent murder of two British soldiers, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that that particularly unacceptable form of transport system is hounded out of the centre of Belfast, for the protection of all its citizens?

Mr. Needham: We are aware of the connection between paramilitary organisations in both communities and black taxis, although there are many black taxi operators in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland who do a very good job. The Chief Constable has established an anti-rackets squad to deal with rackets generally in Northern Ireland, and that is a high priority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward provisions in a new prevention of terrorism Bill which we hope will go a long way towards knocking out all forms of rackets in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is it not a fact that these battlewagons, as some of these black taxis have become, contributed largely to the appalling murders of two British soldiers? They are not simply used for monetary gain, but as battlewagons. Such activities should be stamped out. If some innocent people suffer, It is better than innocent lives being lost.

Mr. Needham: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, two taxi drivers and the chairman of the Falls Road Taxi Association have been charged with offences in connection with those horrific murders. Clearly, any such misuse of taxis is absolutely disgraceful, but my job as the Minister for the environment is to ensure that both public and private hire taxis are properly licensed and controlled. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, the police must be given the powers to ensure that they stop any terrorist or paramilitary activity by black taxi operations or their drivers.

Irish Foreign Minister

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister; and what was discussed.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I last met Mr. Lenihan on 25 March at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. The joint statement


issued after the meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, sets out the wide range of matters that we discussed.

Mr. Mullin: Who authorised the execution of the three IRA members killed in Gibraltar?

Mr. King: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently well informed to know that the events in Gibraltar will be the subject of a full inquest before a jury. It is absolutely intolerable to make such comments in advance of the proper process of the law.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. Lenihan, what message will he give him for Mr. Haughey? Will he give the message given by the Foreign Secretary commending Mr. Haughey as a true and great patriot, or will he give the denunciation by The Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday?

Mr. King: I shall have great pleasure in endorsing the messages of my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when I next meet Mr. Haughey. I see no difficulty in that whatsoever. I should not have thought that there was any hon. Member who would not regard Mr. Haughey as a true patriot for his own country, or who would deny that we look for the fullest co-operation, not least in the defeat of terrorism and in the fight against the common evil represented by terrorism in the island of Ireland. We look for the fullest co-operation, and that is enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Mallon: When the Secretary of State next meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he confirm to him that the statesmanlike views expressed by the Foreign Secretary represent the views of The Prime Minister and the Cabinet? If that is the case, will he then confirm to the Irish Foreign Minister that the petulant display by The Prime Minister at Question Time on Tuesday was the result of irrational pique rather than rational political judgment?

Mr. King: I suspect that they are what one might call two sides of the spectrum. There is some attempt to divide my right hon. Friends, but we are together on these matters. We share a common approach. I would say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that if he reads the speech by the Foreign Secretary he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that the agreement that we have signed carries commitments and responsibilities on both sides and involves obligations on both sides. It is not part of a process sliding towards somewhere else, but, in the phrase that I have used, it is an end in itself. It is a resolution of the difficulties that have bedevilled the relationship of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and any change in that relationship will be subject to the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Irish Foreign Minister the Irish Parliament's unilateral imposition of restrictions on extradition from the Republic to the United Kingdom on the unjustified ground of concern for the quality of British justice and spurious concern for the rights of so-called Irish citizens who are extradited to Britain? If so, what is the Government's reaction to that unilateral restriction on the due legal process between our two countries?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will know that he picks up an extract from the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he says that there is no monopoly of grievance. He made no secret in that speech of our grievances about the way in which the extradition issue has been handled, but he said that we seek to resolve such problems within the normal relationships between our countries. I certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I am most anxious, as I am sure all those responsible within the Republic of Ireland must be, to ensure that there are, at the earliest moment, effective extradition arrangements between our two countries.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the rabble-rousing and jingoistic answer that he gave me last time I asked about the shooting of the three IRA members has intensified the situation and that there have been more killings in the past few weeks than for a long time? Does he realise that shooting to kill demands an inquiry and that the tactics used by paramilitaries on both sides of just killing should not have been adopted by us when we could have arrested the three IRA members? We should not engage in the same tactics.

Mr. King: I do not immediately recall what the hon. Gentleman described as my jingoistic answer. I think that I may have expressed some considerable relief, which I think the House shared, that the most powerful bomb that the Spanish police had ever seen in their lifetime, despite all their experience of ETA, did not go off in the confined streets of Gibraltar. There cannot be any decent Member of the House who is not profoundly relieved that some 200 people who might otherwise have been killed or maimed did not meet their death or injury at that time. The hon. Gentleman says that there needs to be an inquiry, and he will have heard my earlier answer that there is to be precisely that in the due legal form of an inquest before a jury. That is the proper procedure, and that is what will take place.

Mr. Hayes: When my right hon. Friend next sees the Irish Foreign Minister, will he ask him whether he is as fed up as Conservative Members are of television companies raking through the gutters of Gibraltar to find people to rubbish our security services? Will he also ask him whether he is as fed up as we are with people weeping tears for an active IRA unit which would have been responsible for a major massacre in Gibraltar?

Mr. King: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the proposals for a television broadcast, which I understand may take place tonight. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made representations to the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority about that. If the reports are correct that the programme will include live interviews with people who are likely to be witnesses at the inquest, that raises very difficult issues and could run the serious risk of prejudicing the rights of those concerned at the inquest.

Mr. McNamara: Many people are worried that instead of three people facing the prospect of spending a long time behind bars for taking part in and planning a most horrific offence, the Government may well have created three new martyrs for old Ireland, three more victims for the Crown. The Opposition share that worry. Is the Secretary of State aware that we very much regret the Foreign Secretary's decision to go to the chairman of the IBA to try to prevent


the film being shown? Is he aware that we regard that as another example of the ministerial arm-twisting of the press and the media that we have seen since Christmas?
Is the Secretary of State also aware that by seeking to take that course of action the Government are prejudging the issues because, according to the very words that the Secretary of State used himself, that bomb was 50 miles away? The three were unarmed. Those are the facts. They should have been arrested and charged. The Government have created martyrs and they are now trying to prevent a proper examination of the Government's conduct and policies by hiding behind the theory of an inquest. We well know that there will be no examination in that inquest of the decisions made at Cabinet level about how those men and that women were to be treated. The Government are hiding behind the facts. They are running away again.

Mr. King: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I believe that that was the most unfortunate intervention that I have ever heard. He has presumed to stand at the Dispatch Box—speaking, I understand, on behalf of the Opposition—and say that he claims to know all the facts of this matter in advance of the inquest and the evidence. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman say that he knows all the facts. The hon. Gentleman has—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman asked a series of questions. He is now being answered.

Mr. King: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that those were the facts. I must tell him that, as we have said, there will be an inquest. Does he really think that it is desirable in the proper process of law and for the protection of all those who have their rights who will be giving evidence in one form or another at the inquest, that there should in advance of that inquest be trial by television in which partial witnesses will be shown in support of one particular thesis? The hon. Gentleman should consider the facts. He will hear later that a considerable amount of independent examination of these matters can be quoted to show how dangerous it is for witnesses to give evidence on television before inquiries and inquests are carried out.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet trades union representatives in Northern Ireland to discuss economic prospects; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): My right hon. Friend and I have no outstanding arrangements to meet trades union representatives, though we have met them on a number of occasions in the past to discuss economic prospects and other issues. We value these meetings.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that trade union leaders in Northern Ireland are concerned about the Government's prevarication over Kilroot phase 2, and does he accept their point that the economic logic of it is irrefutable? Is he aware that their feeling now is that the only reason for any further debate is the Government's

desire to privatise Northern Ireland electricity, and that this represents the triumph of political expediency over the economic interests of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Viggers: No, that is not the case, and the decision on the future generation of electricity in Northern Ireland will be taken in the interests of the consumer and of the economy as a whole. The results of an investment appraisal of the proposals for the next phase of generating capacity are currently being considered. Decisions will be taken as soon as possible, in the interests of the consumer and the economy as a whole.

Sir John Farr: When my hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he bear carefully in mind the great importance that is attached to the order placed with Harland and Wolff by Mr. Ravi Tikkoo for the Ultimate Dream? If this order is not to be built at Harland and Wolff, will not the opportunities now presented to Belfast be missed, which would be a matter of great regret?

Mr. Viggers: The concept produced by Harland and Wolff is imaginative and ambitious, but I have to put my hon. Friend right. It is not an order but a conceptual design at this stage, and no detailed costings have been produced. When they are, we shall study them carefully.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give an undertaking that this project will be viewed sympathetically, rather than Parliamentary Private Secretaries going around rebuking Conservative Members who have supported the early-day motion asking that Government funds should be made available, as they will help not only Northern Ireland but the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Viggers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Ors matter will be viewed sympathetically, and he will be the first to agree that the Government have been very supportive of Harland and Wolff over many years. In appraising this project we shall, when the time comes, have to take account of the resources that will be required to support the building of the ship and compare these with the resources that will be required and should be made available for use elsewhere in the Province.

Mr. Peter Robinson: If the question of shipbuilding arises in the Minister's talks with trade union leaders, will he assure them that the Government's aim is not to be neutral when it comes to getting the order for Harland and Wolff, but is positively to encourage that order to come to Northern Ireland, for the benefit not only of those in the Harland and Wolff shipyard but of the suppliers and sub-contractors in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman would not be fair if he accused the Government of not being supportive of Harland and Wolff. We have been extremely supportive and have fought hard to bring orders for the Harland and Wolff shipyard, including the AOR order for the Ministry of Defence. We shall be supportive, but we are bound by the EC sixth directive, and, as I said earlier, by the need to compare the resources that will be required for the building of the ship with the availability of resources which can be used elsewhere in the Province.

Mr. Alton: The Minister said that he would exercise virement within the Northern Ireland budget—in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul if the project goes ahead.


Will he give an undertaking that new resources will be found from outside the Northern Ireland budget to enable this project to go ahead and to ensure that there is fair employment for both parts of the community, and recognise that people throughout the United Kingdom will benefit if the order goes ahead?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Kingdom, and it is appropriate to bear in mind the needs of all shipbuilders in the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom is one country. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Northern Ireland block is available for the development of resources within Northern Ireland, and it would not be appropriate to expect the United Kingdom Government to find resources over and above those of the Northern Ireland block for the support of one individual project.

Integrated Education

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards integrated education, in the light of the education reform document he recently published.

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the plans to implement his Department's support for integrated education.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): It has been the Government's long-standing policy to support viable proposals for the creation of integrated schools in Northern Ireland. We have now sought to give further opportunity for the expression of parental wishes and new impetus to the development of integrated education through our proposals for grant-maintained integrated schools.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he confirm yet again that policies that lead to integrated education are probably the most beneficial long-term initiatives that the Government can take? Will he also assure the House that such policies will not be imposed by the Government, but will be brought about by patiently getting the co-operation and good will of all the communities in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I can confirm the Government's commitment to the expansion of integrated education in Northern Ireland and give my hon. Friend the assurance that the proposals in the consultation paper in no sense reflect a determination to impose integrated education. Rather, they provide an option for parents to choose if they so wish.

Mr. Alton: I congratulate the Minister on a brave initiative. It is a worthwhile step towards bringing about harmony and long-term development of the community in Northern Ireland. May I recall to him the report in the Belfast Telegraph of 25 February, which said that accommodation, equipment and book supplies at integrated schools are inadequate? Will the Minister say whether that can now be rectified?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for his continued support for the

concept of integrated education in Northern Ireland. The allocation of funds to integrated schools that receive funds from my Department is on the same basis as that for the funds that are made available to other schools in the Province. There is no discrimination in resource allocation.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister is aware of the campaign that I have waged for 20 years to end the sectarian divide in education in Northern Ireland [Interruption.] Will we have to wait another 20 years or more before we see an end to it? I know that the SDLP disagrees with my wish to see the bringing together of Protestant and Roman Catholic young children. Is it right that the taxpayer should have to pay for two separate systems of education that cruelly divide the children and waste taxpayers' money?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches laughed when the hon. Gentleman mentioned his very creditable campaign over many years to promote the concept of integrated education. The people of the Province owe him a great debt for doing that. I make it clear that the number of integrated schools that will emerge from the proposals is not a matter for me. In the first instance it is a matter for the House and the other place to determine by legislation. When that legislation is in place, it will be a matter for the parents. The Government are seeking to facilitate those parents who would like to have their children educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community. That is an important commitment by the Government. We are rightly pleased to offer it to the people of the Province, and we do it with conviction.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister talks about greater parental choice and about integrating schools. Will he bear in mind that the geographical distribution of schools in Northern Ireland reflects the geographical distribution of the pupils who attend those schools? As soon as he starts interfering with the pool of pupils, that could have very severe and unforeseen effects on the viability of many schools, especially in the more sparsely populated rural areas. Will the Minister carefully bear that in mind?

Dr. Mawhinney: Of course I shall bear that in mind, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not interfering. I am facilitating those parents who may choose to have their children educated in this way. That is a very important distinction. It is absolutely right that integrated education, certainly in the foreseeable future, is not the answer to the problems of the Province. Because of the housing arrangements that the hon. Gentleman mentions, it would be difficult to see integrated schools developing in many areas of the Province in the immediate future. I recognise that fact, and I also recognise that some rural schools in isolated areas will need some protection. He will know that, as a matter of policy, the Department has already made it clear that it will offer protection to schools in rural and isolated areas. Having said all that, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he still does not advance any reason why parents should not be given the option of integrated education if they wish to follow it.

Ms. Mowlam: In view of the overwhelming number of complaints that were received about lack of time for consultation prior to the introduction of the Education Reform Bill in England and Wales, will the Minister please explain how he can contemplate 41 school days as


sufficient time for consultation on a document which, in his own words, will change the nature of education in Northern Irish schools well into the next century?

Dr. Mawhinney: First, it gives me pleasure to welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. We look forward to working with her in future.
The hon. Lady will know that a two-month consultation period was made available in England and Wales. She will also know that I not only made available a two-month consultation period, but, because the paper was launched at the beginning of the Easter school holidays, added a further three weeks for consultation. The hon. Lady will also bear in mind that the proposals—or at least many of them—have not come as a great surprise to the people of Northern Ireland. They have been widely debated over months as progress has been made on the Bill in the House. For all those reasons, I believe that the consultation time was perfectly adequate.

Security

Rev. Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 24 March, two part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a regular soldier have been murdered by the Provisional IRA.
The security threat remains high, but the courageous and determined efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results.
Since the beginning of the year a total of 103 people have been charged with serious offences, including five with murder and six with attempted murder. A total of 272 weapons, just over 65,000 rounds of ammunition, and approximately 2,700 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand also that the Garda Siochana has recovered some 174 weapons, almost 126,000 rounds of ammunition, and 600 lb of commercial explosives.

Rev. Paisley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Northern Ireland are deeply concerned at the two recent murders? On behalf of the people for whom I speak, I express my sympathy to the family in Mid-Ulster and to the family in England who have been so tragically bereaved.
Has the Secretary of State information that the murder of Mr. Gibson, a member of the UDR, was an inside job? Can he confirm that another member of the UDR was to do the job that Mr. Gibson was killed doing? Is he aware that that member of the UDR was told by the security forces not to report for duty? Is he aware that another man, not in sympathy with the UDR, was to take his place, and that that man did not turn up? Therefore, Mr. Gibson was put into the position of having to do the job, and he was then murdered. Is he aware that the car that was used by the murderers was supposed to be in the possession of people who were away for the day, but had left their keys in it? Does that not indicate a well-organised and orchestrated inside job in Cookstown to kill members of the UDR?

Mr. Tom King: I certainly entirely share the feelings that were expressed by the hon. Member about the killings and about the earlier killing, at a farm sale, of another part-time member of the UDR. Although there certainly were some rather surprising features about the killing of Mr. Gibson, in that he had only just gone on that round that day, I certainly do not have any of the information that the hon. Member has conveyed to the House on this occasion.

Mr. Molyneaux: In the House on Tuesday, The Prime Minister said that the Government would continue to press for effective security co-operation across the border. Why should it now be necessary to press for delivery of the one and only promise that was made by the Dublin Government when the Agreement was signed two and a half years ago?

Mr. King: In her answer The Prime Minister made clear the importance that we attach to continual work to improve cross-border security co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer that I gave. He will have heard also of the substantial arms seizures and recoveries of ammunition and explosives that have been achieved by the Garda Siochana. Obviously, we and everybody in Northern Ireland must take great comfort from the fact that those weapons of death have now been recovered from terrorist clutches. It is a continual process, and in the answer that I gave earlier I emphasised the importance that we attach to the continual improvement in every possible way of cross-border security co-operation.

Mr. Budgen: As it was said that the security situation would be much improved by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent important and clearly well-considered speech by Mr Haughey to Fianna Fail supporters in New York? Does he agree that that clearly repudiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and will he please dissociate himself from the Foreign Secretary's offensive and patronising attempt to depict Mr. Haughey as some minor figure who did not understand what he was saying?

Mr. King: I am afraid that I did not notice whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber, but I answered that question a little earlier and made absolutely clear the position of the Government on these matters.

Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State confirm that idle purpose of an inquest is to establish the cause of death, not to conduct a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the cause of death? Secondly, regarding the amazing series of events that began with the appalling statement in the House by the Attorney-General that certain people are above the rule of law, I am glad to see that he now at least comes in during Northern Ireland questions to hear people talk about the consequences of what he said on that day. In the light of that statement, the decision of the Department of Defence that when a soldier is given a life sentence for murder that sentence is two and a half years, and the Gibraltar affair, which is now surrounded by more controversy and which led to the Greek tragedy of the funerals in Belfast, will the Secretary of State confirm that, given the tensions and anger that those events created, the Irish Prime Minister showed commendable restraint'? Will he advise his colleague The Prime Minister to read Mr. Haughey's speeches in the


United States and to take not the advice of the rent-a-headline hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) but to take instead his advice and that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who were appointed to conduct relations with the Irish Government, among other things?

Mr. King: The hon. Member has rehearsed what we all know of the catalogue of events in recent months. I take great exception to a number of the descriptions that he has given; for example, the suggestion that anybody is above the rule of law. That is simply not true, since people have already been prosecuted for murder for the events that he described, and my right hon. and learned Friend came to the House to report very fully to this sovereign Parliament the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. In no sense are these people, or any people in Northern Ireland, above the law. The hon. Member surely realises that there is no benefit, if we are trying to establish better co-operation and to work together to defeat the terrorists, in rehearsing old grievances. Rather, we should try to work together in a positive and constructive way.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation in Northern Ireland would be more satisfactory if convicted terrorists served the full term of their sentences rather than enjoying a substantial remission?

Mr. King: I certainly look to a situation in which those convicted of serious terrorist crimes face proper retribution in terms of the sentences that they are given. I have no comment to make today on remission system.

Mr. McNamara: We on the Opposition Benches rejoice in the finding of arms and the conviction of prisoners under the rule of law for terrorists in Northern Ireland. Following The Prime Minister's statement to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on Tuesday, can the Secretary of State say whether the Government of the Irish Republic have been more, or less, stinting in their efforts to defeat the men of violence in the past few months; whether there has been any effective break in co-operation across the border; and why, in view of the Taoiseach's statement in Dublin on his arrival from New York—before The Prime Minister's made her observations—which was published widely in the press, to the effect that the Irish Government would work the mechanism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the full, The Prime Minister felt it necessary to say that she would seek reassurances from the Irish Government and that they were backing away from their responsibilities under the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does the Secretary of State really think that that helps? Is not the spirit of what the Foreign Secretary said at Derby a much better way of trying to conduct affairs between both our countries?

Mr. King: I have already said to hon. Members, and I shall make it clear again, that the reply of my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister and the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made absolutely clear our commitment to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is not a case of something in which some matters are more important than others. Both countries have their responsibilities, obligations and commitments. We seek to make the agreement work to the full, and we make no secret of the fact that we attach particular importance, for

very good reason, to the closest possible co-operation in the fight against terrorism. Unless it is defeated, there is no sensible and safe future for people on the island of Ireland, whether north or south of the border.

Political Parties (Talks)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his latest talks with Northern Ireland political leaders.

Mr. Tom King: Following my earlier meetings with the leaders of the two main Unionist parties I have now had two meetings with the leadership of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I hope to hold a further meeting with the Unionist leaders shortly. My purpose in these talks is to establish whether a basis exists for a wider dialogue about the future government of Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not the Ulster Unionist difficulty over all this and over the possibility of talking to Mr. Haughey the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which also presents problems to a patriotic Taoiseach? Will the Government make use of the November review of the Intergovernmental Conference to transform this unequal agreement into an equal treaty of full partnership? Let the flawed agreement wither, and get down to business.

Mr. King: I do not see it as my role to dwell on the difficulties that may be faced by Unionists and Nationalists. It is easy to find difficulties in Northern Ireland in every direction. I am trying to see whether we can find a constructive way forward in which people in the Province can take more responsibility for the government of the Province. It is important not to dwell on difficulties but to find ways in which men of good will can work together.

Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State agree that there will be no prospects of any improvement in the political or security position if people throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic believe that the British Government are seeking to gag and silence the media and are colluding in the propagation of misinformation? Does he understand that it is entirely disingenuous to compare an inquest with a full public inquiry? As the chairman of the IBA is believed to have told the Foreign Secretary to get stuffed, will the Secretary of State now give an assurance that the Government will not seek an injunction and will allow people throughout the whole United Kingdom to know the truth about what happened recently in Gibraltar?

Mr. King: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman believes that the correct way to arrive at the truth is by a television broadcast in advance of the proper procedure of the inquest, at which all witnesses involved have an opportunity to give their evidence before a jury under the rules of procedure that pertain in Gibraltar. I should have thought that to seek to pre-empt that and to present one side of an argument through trial by television would worry every hon. Member who is anxious to see that people's rights are protected and that justice is done.

Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words,


In the absence of devolved government, we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services."?
Have not nine years elapsed since those words appeared in our manifesto? If the policy was right when it was fashioned by Airey Neave, why is it wrong today? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any constitutional changes in Northern Ireland with regard to local government there can he introduced, even though opposed by the Irish Republic?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows well that I am at the moment seeking to initiate discussions with the principal constitutional parties within the Province and have made it absolutely clear that I am prepared to listen to any propositions that any may seek to put forward and consider what alternative approaches might be adopted. I am not able to comment further to my hon. Friend on the reasons why those earlier comments were not pursued.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Pike: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Pike: If The Prime Minister agrees with the words of the Minister replying to yesterday's debate to the effect that the Government were making only "modest adjustments", and not major concessions, will she recognise the case of a constituent of mine? She is 79-years-old, living in a private old people's home, with a pension of £41·71 a week. She has been trying to sell her house, valued at £7,500, for 17 months but is unable to do so. She is not helped by yesterday's decision. Will The Prime Minister accept that more problems were created than were solved yesterday? What is that old lady going to do, and what are the Government going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been my experience that when hon. Members raise personal cases in the House, which used virtually never to be done at Question Time, there is very rarely or never a full statement of the facts. The cases must be taken up with the Minister concerned.
With regard to the announcement yesterday, bearing in mind that the amount spent on housing benefit was £5,200 million, and the amount at the end of yesterday was £5,300 million, I think that, a "modest adjustment", but effective to deal with the problems, is indeed a proper description of what took place.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the pamphlet, "The Crisis in Religious Education", expressing grave concern at the trend towards multi-faith education in our schools? Will she reaffirm her Government's commitment to the teaching of Christianity to all the children in our schools?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, in the Education Act 1944 religious education was made compulsory and the syllabus was to be determined by a

committee drawn up locally. Most of us believe, and I think it is borne out by the debates of that time, that the reference there to religious education was predominantly but not exclusively, to the scriptures of the Bible, and are somewhat concerned that that has not altogether been carried out. I understand that there will be a debate in another place and that those views may be very well ventilated.

Mr. Kinnock: In answer to a parliamentary question yesterday The Prime Minister told the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was what she called the lead Minister on exchange rates. Can she please tell us who is the lead Minister on benefit rates at the moment?

The Prime Minister: As I said in the reply to that question, our policies are policies of the Government as a whole, and very successful they are.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry that The Prime Minister cannot tell us who is the lead Minister on benefit rates, because I read in the Daily Mail this morning that The Prime Minister alone was responsible for the U-turn yesterday, and I wanted to give full credit where it was due. As The Prime Minister appears to have some responsibility in these matters, and as the savings on housing benefit were to have been £640 million, before the £100 million announcement yesterday, could she tell us who will now lose that £540 million? Will they not be people who until this month were considered too poor to pay any rates and who now, regardless of their ability to pay, are having to pay 20 per cent. of their rates?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for congratulating the entire Government on successful economic policies—so successful that we have the best social security policies that any Government have ever had. Everyone benefits—even Opposition Members have benefited during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Does The Prime Minister not yet understand, when she goes on about the matters to which she has just referred and the £46 billion, that the people who are losing are not concerned about the £46 billion that the right hon. Lady is spending on others, but are concerned about the £4, £6 and £10 a week that she is taking away from them? If things are so good, why are they so bad?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand is that things are good and he knows full well that they are good, because the economy is run extremely well and the total amount spent on social security and on health, as well as on things such as provision for Members of Parliament, far exceeds anything previously achieved.

Mr. Hind: Has my right hon. Friend received the thanks of Mr. Fletcher, an unemployed labourer from Middlesbrough, who has obtained a job as a printer following the advice that my right hon. Friend gave him when he threw his applications that had been rejected at her, to go to the Manpower Services Commission? Despite the attitude of the trade unions, will my right hon. Friend give similar advice to the thousands of unemployed workers in the north of England, to join the adult training scheme?

The Prime Minister: The House will remember that Mr. Fletcher tackled me personally before television cameras on a visit that I made to Teesside, saying that he had put in about 1,000 applications for jobs and had not got one. I advised him to go and get training with the Manpower Services Commission. He was very sceptical, but he was a very wise man—he took my advice and he found that it got him a job.

Mr. McCusker: Is The Prime Minister aware that a few moments ago the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tried to tell me that what I had heard her say on Tuesday at Prime Minister's Question Time, when she expressed concern about The Prime Minister and Government of the Irish Republic, was identical to what the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend? Is that what she expected me to interpret her as having said?

The Prime Minister: Both of my right hon. Friends and I are concerned that the Anglo-Irish Agreement not only continues but is seen to work. A vital part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the recognition by the Republic that the rights of the people in Northern Ireland would not be changed without the consent of the majority. It is an important part of the agreement, and the Republic accepted it. No doubt whatsoever should be cast upon it. That is the purpose of the various emphases placed upon that agreement and of the several comments that have been made by my right hon. Friends and me on the speeches of the Taoiseach.

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the confirmation by NATO Defence Ministers at their meeting in Brussels of the essential, continuing role of nuclear weapons in our defence and the need to keep them up to date? Against the background of the scale of Soviet forces and their activity, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain must play her full part in that?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the NATO Defence Ministers have had a very successful meeting. A communiqué will be placed in the House shortly. The Ministers have agreed on guidance about the modernisation of those nuclear weapons. That full guidance, of course, is not published. The important thing is that the Ministers have agreed on the way ahead. It is important because the Soviet Union continues to modernise all her nuclear weapons other than those affected by the INF agreement, and we do the same. It is vital that the nuclear deterrent is kept modern and up to date and that our entire defence, including other nuclear weapons, is modernised and kept effective.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Would The Prime Minister like to confirm the press notice from the Department of Health and Social Security this morning, which indicated that the unit that will administer the scheme announced by the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday will not be in place until 1 July? Will she advise the various claimants what they will

do until then? Will she also confirm that the changes announced yesterday will not alleviate the problems of two invalidity benefit recipients, Dorothy and Kenneth Ellis, who have also written to The Prime Minister, and who as a direct result of her decision to discontinue housing benefit supplement from 1 April will now be required to pay £6 a week extra for prescriptions?

The Prime Minister: In winding up the debate last night my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled made it quite clear that the unit will be in the DHSS and outlined the provisions that will he made in the meantime for our constituents.

Miss Emma Nicholson: May I thank The Prime Minister most warmly on behalf of state pensioners in my constituency who have saved all their working lives on modest wages and are delighted with the statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that those modest changes were right and have caused a great deal of pleasure.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Williams: What does The Prime Minister have to say to a young man in my constituency who is unemployed, married and has three small children? He was on an income of £68·50 a week plus child benefit. He is now on an income of £69·45—an increase less than the rate of inflation. He is especially concerned about the change to the social fund, as he benefited from several single payments during the last year. Is it right to describe him and his family as gainers, when in fact they have lost in the annual uprating, they have lost in the uprating of child benefit and they will lose heavily over the setting up of the social fund?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must take up a detailed case with the special unit in the DHSS. It is a highly detailed case—[Interruption.] The other case was nothing to do with social security. The hon. Gentleman must take up this highly detailed case with the special unit that is to be set up, as I am sure he will. It is not possible to deal with it in this way. Sometimes there have been changes in housing benefit, many of them covered by the transitional protection announced yesterday. Frequently other changes in income support or family credit or changes with regard to the increased disability benefits are not mentioned by hon. Members, but are very relevant. Other matters have also to be taken into account, such as the previous local authority discretionary scheme. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that it is not possible to deal with the case in this way.

Mr. Burns: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Liberal-controlled Chelmsford borough council has increased its share of the rates this year by a staggering 36


per cent., while last year, when a general election was in the offing, it cut them by 13 per cent. Is she aware that Marconi in Chelmsford is faced with a rates bill of almost £6,000 more a week as a result? Does she agree that the sooner the business rate and the community charge are introduced, the sooner such highway robbery will be stopped and genuine help given to hard-pressed businesses and individuals alike?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the people of Chelmsford will draw the appropriate conclusions from those vivid figures. Certainly, once we have the new community charge and unified business rate in place it will be very much easier for people to judge the actions of their local authority against the actions of others. The whole of the new finance system is geared to ensuring that the same level of service, delivered at the same standard of efficiency, should result in the same community charge all over England—and separately all over Scotland—so that people can judge the efficiency and effectiveness of their local authority.

Mr. Pendry: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pendry: Will The Prime Minister take time today to look afresh at the problems facing Members of Parliament arising from the lack of secretarial provision, particularly if many hon. Members, like myself, have to answer literally thousands of letters of protest about the Government's proposals? I have received hundreds of letters on social security, 2,000 on the poll tax, and many on health and transport cuts. In the interests of democracy and speedy replies to our constituents, will The Prime Minister give us more assistance for secretarial work or, better still, more palatable legislation?

The Prime Minister: No. Members of Parliament have never been better off, either for salary or secretarial assistance, than they are now. The hon. Gentleman has plenty of assistance to enable him to deal efficiently with his correspondence.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 3 MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Proceedings on the Coroners Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure. 
Motion relating to the First Scottish Standing Committee.
WEDNESDAY 4 MAY—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Legal Aid Bill [Lords].
Followed by a debate on the Rover Group on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Afterwards consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill.
THURSDAY 5 MAY—There will be a debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the EC documents relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.
Followed by remaining stages of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9 MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

[Debate on Thursday 5 May

Relevant European Community documents:


(a) 4852/88
Agricultural Stabilisers, Land Set-Aside and Cessation of Farming


(b) 4779/88


(c) 4856/88


(d) 5004/88


(e) 5448/88 Add 1 &amp; 2 &amp; 3
Agricultural Price Proposals


(f) 4079/88
Agricultural Markets 1987

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5
(b) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5
(c) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5
(d) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5
(e) HC 43-xxi (1987–88), para 3 &amp; HC 43-xxii (1987–88) para 2
(f) HC 43-xvi ( 1987–88), para 4]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
In view of the conflicting stories about the establishment of the special unit at the DHSS, announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services, can the Leader of the House get the Secretary of State to come back to the House to make clear when the special unit will start work? Is it to be in two or three months' time, as some DHSS offices have indicated? What will be its job? How many civil servants will be employed? How can people who want to make claims get in touch with those civil servants?
As the crisis in the shipbuilding industry deepens, may we expect a debate before any irrevocable decisions are taken by the Government?
Will the Home Secretary be coming to the House to explain his efforts to try to persuade the Independent Broadcasting Authority to prohibit the showing of a television documentary about the shooting of three members of the IRA in Gibraltar? In the event of him failing to persuade the IBA, will he seek an injunction to prevent it from showing the film?
Has the Leader of the House received a request from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to make a personal statement to reply to the allegations made in the admittedly Murdoch-owned Today newspaper this morning that he has been seeking to interfere in the planning process to his own benefit?
Having been present, along with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, last Friday for the Adjournment debate about the conduct of The Prime Minister initiated by my hon. and tenacious Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and having heard the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who was put up to respond, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will arrange for the matter to be debated more fully, preferably in Government time?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has asked me five questions. First, he asked about the special units which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is setting up as a result of the statement he made to the House yesterday. My right hon. Friend made clear the way in which the units will be run. However, I recognise that there may still be some confusion and, if there is, I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether any further clarification is required.
I note the hon. Gentleman's reference to the shipbuilding industry. That is an important industry on which it would be right to have a debate in the not-too-distant future. I hope that he will agree that the exact timing of the debate can be discussed through the usual channels.
With regard to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and Gibraltar, it is not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who has been in contact with Lord Thomson, the chairman of the IBA, to ask him to postpone the transmission of the programme as it is understood to include interviews with potential witnesses at the Gibraltar coroner's inquest which is to be heard later this year. My right hon. and learned Friend was naturally concerned that the coroner's inquest would be prejudiced which, I should have thought, would concern every hon. Member.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), acted entirely within his rights as a private citizen, along with other local residents, in raising objection to the proposed development. The Department of the Environment has considered the matter and has decided not to stop the proposed development.
I have read the Official Report of the Adjournment debate on Friday. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, answered the debate extremely well, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr. David Shaw: When my right hon. Friend considers the business of the House for the next week or fortnight, will he bear in mind the photograph in today's


Evening Standard of the home of a young stewardess in my constituency, the door of which has been daubed with the words "scab" and "kill"? Will he further note that the daubing of her home occurred within 24 hours of the Labour party national executive expressing solidarity with the acts of violence and intimidation? Will he ensure that any debate on that matter gives hon. Members the opportunity to protest about the freedom to work and the right to work?

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. David Winnick: It is a smear.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) must ask for debates and not raise matters like that about his constituency.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The national executive of the Labour party, in the motion that it passed yesterday, expressed no solidarity whatever with any acts of violence. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to withdraw that allegation. It is false and casts a slur on every Opposition Member.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what Members say provided it is in order. However, as I have said on previous occasions, business questions are designed for hon. Members to ask the Leader of the House for debates, and not to raise controversial constituency issues.

Mr. Wakeham: I confirm that I also do not have any responsibility for Labour party policy. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) reflects the concern in his constituency. I cannot promise a debate next week on that matter.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the Leader of the House aware that the reply to the question about his hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is completely unsatisfactory? What has happened to ministerial standards? Why should a Minister be able to phone a Minister in another Department to ask for a planning application to be remitted? That is completely wrong. The Leader of the House should recommend to The Prime Minister that the hon. Member should go forthwith.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard exactly what I said. I said that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, together with other local residents, had acted properly and within his rights as a private citizen in objecting to the proposed development. The matter was dealt with by the Department of the Environment in entirely the proper fashion and it decided not to stop the proposed development. I should have thought that that was a satisfactory outcome for all except the residents who objected.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Reverting to the situation in Dover and other east Kent communities that are affected by the P and O industrial dispute, will my right hon. Friend take into account the possibility of persuading the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment to be ready to make a statement on this

important matter next week? The situation is deteriorating, communities are deeply divided, and the right to work must be preserved by the Government, in accordance with the law if necessary.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is a disturbing situation. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment. I am sure that they will not hesitate to make a statement in the House if they believe that to be the right course of action.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State for Defence has been engaged in important discussions with the nuclear planning group in Brussels. Will he make a statement to the House next week on any decisions that were taken at that meeting?
Has the Chairman of the Committee of Selection yet reported to the Leader of the House on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the inability of any—or enough—Conservative Members to sit on it? If that process has reached a dead end, is it possible to have a Joint Committee of both Houses, which would at least allow some scrutiny of the Scottish Office?

Mr. Wakeham: The matter of the NATO meeting was raised with me through the usual channels and I have made inquiries about it. I shall check that the copy of the communiqué is available in the Library, as I believe it to be. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not our normal practice to make statements after these meetings because of the confidential nature of the exchanges, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
As I think most people know, I have now received a letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, in which he reports that the Committee was unable to nominate members to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when it met last week. When approached on that occasion, none of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies expressed a willingness to serve on the Committee. However, discussions are still continuing.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Chinese Communist Government in Beijing is about to publish the Basic Law which will govern the future of Hong Kong after 1997. As there has been some suggestion that this House should not discuss that matter, can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a debate on Hong Kong before the summer recess?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be a debate on Hong Kong before the summer recess, but I shall certainly refer the matter to the Foreign Secretary and have discussions with him about what would be most appropriate.
I cut short my answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I was going to say, in answer to a question that he did not ask me, that if he had asked for a debate I should have suggested that that matter be dealt with through the usual channels.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has fallen below his usual standards of full and frank explanation? Is it not a fact that next Thursday he intends to debate the land set-aside, stabilisers and cessation of farming draft regulations of the


European Community aimed at reform of its agriculture policy, together with the agriculture price proposals for the whole of next year? Would it not have been better for the right hon. Gentleman to have made that plain?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by putting such a debate on the Adjournment he prevents the House from taking a view, if it so wishes, on any of these matters? By widening .the debate on the Adjournment, anything can be included in the subject, and that is a constitutional decision that could be of considerable importance to the House, now and in the future.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's wisdom in those matters. He will appreciate that there has been wide interest in the possibility of a general debate on agriculture matters. The proposals that I have announced are for the general convenience of the House. He will understand that those matters were the subject of discussion and agreement through the usual channels, but I am happy to have further discussions through the usual channels, if that is required.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to discuss the industrial action in the Inner London education authority, where an office workers' strike has meant that the special school bus drivers have been unable to take children to school, with the result that special school children are unable to exercise their right to full-time education, unless their parents can afford the taxi fares to take them?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the anxiety of my hon. Friend and a number of his constituents over that matter, but I regret that I am unable to find time next week for a debate.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Ministry of Defence has just lost a long, hard battle against some of its own ex-service men? One and a quarter hours ago, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ruled that British nuclear test veterans could sue for damage caused in the Pacific island tests. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that will result in a flood of thousands of legal claims and years of litigation unless the Government set up a full and generous compensation scheme? May we have a debate on that matter next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no idea whether the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman puts on any decision that may have been made an hour and a quarter ago is correct, but I am sure that he will agree that it would not be for me to comment on something of that sort, which I have not even seen. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend say how he allocates time for debates on the regions of the United Kingdom or, as I should perhaps say, the various countries that make up the United Kingdom? Does he have the precise number of hours or days of debate for each part, or is it simply a matter of the business that has to be done?

Mr. Wakeham: The process that the Leader of the House goes through is to seek to put a quart into a pint pot. One does one's best to meet the general wishes of the

House. There was a time when the Opposition regularly initiated debates on the regions of the United Kingdom, but as prosperity now spreads steadily throughout the country as a result of the Government's policies, Opposition Members appear less enthusiastic about having such debates.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It cannot have escaped the notice of the Leader of the House that today sees the opening of the garden festival in Glasgow, which is a significant event not just for the city but for the whole of Scotland. Would not this be an appropriate time to announce the possibility of a debate on tourism, which is very important to the economy of Scotland, enabling hon. Members to explore such issues as the transport infrastructure and the rating system?
On the issue of the Scottish Select Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House whether he will afford an opportunity directly to the Scottish National party and to the Social and Liberal Democrats to offer their view on how matters may proceed?

Mr. Wakeham: On the last point, the hon. Lady has not been shy in giving her advice to the House and to me on a number of occasions and I have a shrewd idea that I know, broadly speaking, how she would like to proceed on that matter. However, the matter of nomination to the Select Committee is not for me. It is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I shall draw the hon. Lady's views to its attention.
I am sure that the hon. Lady is right to say what she did about the garden festival in Glasgow and to stress the importance of tourism, which could well be the subject of a useful debate, although I cannot promise her a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will know that last Sunday, together with many colleagues, I enjoyed watching the cup final at Wembley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). He owns a football club, but, if he had owned a racehorse, I would have been unable to see it race on a Sunday because of the inadequate laws of the land. When will we have a debate, supported by the Government, enabling horse racing to enjoy the same facilities as every other sport in the land?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall never be free of the scars left by Sunday shopping Bills and allied matters. The Government would like to make progress on such matters, but it would not be sensible to start on that process until we were pretty sure that we had a bigger measure of agreement than exists.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement on the employment of Mr. Peter Luff as a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? He is classified as a full civil servant but is paid nothing by the Department, receiving his money direct from his employers, Good Relations. A statement is important since that lobbyist is employed at the heart of the Department of Trade and Industry by Good Relations, a company subject to an investigation by the self-same Department because of fraudulent activity during a takeover.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the arrangements made in respect of that special adviser have been made after


proper consultation and inquiries, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for 'Trade and Industry.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that the reports of Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner have aroused enormous and extremely well-informed discussion in many circles. It is essential that, before the Government make a definitive reply to those reports, they have the opportunity to hear from the House the wide range of opinions and ideas that they have generated. Is there any chance of an early debate on them?

Mr. Wakeham: The reports are being considered by the Government and it would not be helpful for me to comment until appropriate consideration has taken place. However, I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I shall bear it in mind when we consider how best to proceed.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider giving time next week for a debate on grandparents' rights in support of my early-day motion which has been signed by 261 hon. Members from both sides of the House? Why did the Government Whip object to the Second Reading of my Grandparents (Adoption of Children) Bill last Friday? Will he also look at the allegations made in the press this week about the drinking habits of Members of Parliament, and perhaps consider closing the press bars?

Mr. Wakeham: It is not for me to comment on the second matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the first matter, the procedure for private Members' Bills is probably better understood by the hon. Gentleman than his rather naive approach to the question would lead us to believe. It would not be right for us to make a statement on that this week.

Mr. Tim Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1022?
[That this House notes that according to the BBC Annual Report 1986–87 the decision was taken not to proceed until after the General Election with production of Mr. Ian Curtis's The Falklands Play', and that in May the BBC is due to screen Mr. Charles Wood's play 'Tumbledown', a play of emotional pacification which emphasises the ghastly horrors of the fighting without once saving why the war had to be fought; and, in view of the BBC's obligation to be even handed over matters of controversy, calls on the BBC to proceed with production of 'The Falklands Play' at once.]
Does he agree that, now that the BBC has decided to screen the play "Tumbledown" at the end of next month, it would be right and in the interests of balance to proceed with the production of "The Falklands Play"? Is he aware that yesterday the House of Lords had a useful and constructive debate on the responsibilities and duties of the BBC? Will my right hon. Friend either arrange for me to win the forthcoming ballot or arrange a debate in Government time on that matter?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman wants to interfere with the BBC and the ballot.

Mr. Wakeham: I was going to give my hon. Friend a helpful answer, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wisely suggested that I had better not talk about ballots. I wish my hon. Friend the best luck

in the world in the ballot, but it is not for me to interfere with that. Nor, indeed, is it for me to interfere with the BBC about the programmes that it shows. Such matters are best left to the BBC.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1024 about the Nestle bid for a good British company—Rowntree?
[That this House notes that under Swiss law it would be impossible for British chocolate and confectionery companies to take over Swiss-based companies; also notes the recent commendation by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the successful manufacturing and sales operation of Rowntree plc in tackling the European market; and believes that the 12,000 jobs in the company are threatened by the takeover bid by Nestlé and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
May we have an early debate on that matter because the largest private employer in my constituency is a Rowntree factory and there is deep concern that it will not be in the British interest for a foreigner to take over that company?

Mr. Wakeham: There is a well established procedure for these matters. It falls to the Director General of Fair Trading to consider the proposal under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and to advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the normal way on the question of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am sure that it is in the best interests to proceed in the proper way.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers whether to have a debate on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, will he bear in mind the fact that in Scotland I have been accused of being less than honourable in this matter and that as a result I am now required and forced to take action through the Scottish and United Kingdom courts to rectify it? That could, well have an effect on any debate that might take place because it would debar me effectively from stating my case properly and fully here.

Mr. Wakeham: I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: In reply to a question this afternoon, The Prime Minister referred to the communiqué from the nuclear planning group which she said would be about guidance on the modernisation of nuclear weapons. Nothwithstanding the reply that has already been given about a statement which might he made when the Secretary of State for Defence returns, does the Leader of the House agree that the communiqué is only about guidance because there is no agreement in NATO about the so-called modernisation plan? Does he therefore agree that it is appropriate that the House should not just hear a statement, but should have a debate to discuss whether the so-called modernisation might be necessary? Will he make early arrangements for such a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Lady's long-standing interest in these matters. However, my responsibility is to check that a copy of the communiqué is available in the Library so that hon. Members may look at it. It is not normal practice to make statements after these meetings because of the confidential nature of the exchanges. It would not be right to depart from that practice on this occasion.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House consider the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland is likely to be in Glasgow today and that, although we accept that he may come back with a bunch of flowers, he is much more likely to come back with a bunch of fives because the poll tax figure for Glasgow is £529? As this legislation will be implemented in Scotland in 1989, we need clear and accurate figures. We are much more likely to accept the figure of £529 given by a local government official than the £200-odd figure given by officials at the Scottish Office, whom we are beginning to distrust.

Mr. Wakeham: Despite the alarms and excursions caused by the hon. Gentleman and other opponents of the new system in Scotland, it is proceeding steadily towards implementation on the planned timetable. As we have always intended, Scotland will enjoy the benefits of this important reform from 1 April 1989.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about county structure plans? The Gloucestershire county structure plan is causing a great deal of concern to my constituents and perhaps other county structure plans are causing similar problems elsewhere. Such plans are often based on the most flimsy statistical evidence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time for a debate on that issue.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that there are many anxieties on that issue, and I am certain that we would have an interesting debate if I could find time for one. However, I cannot be too hopeful. Perhaps my hon. Friend will try his luck by raising this subject in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman raise within Cabinet the need to renationalise British Telecom in view of its increasing incompetence? Is he aware that since last November there has been a persistent fault in the telephone in my flat nearly every single time that I have tried to ring it on 219 numbers and on no other numbers? Does he realise that a number of engineers have assured me the fault is not in the Grosvenor exchange and that the fault is not in the equipment here in the House? Will he accept from me that there is not much compensation in the fact that an engineer rang me at 11.40 this morning to ask if I could explain to him what the problem was?
Since British Telecom seems absolutely flummoxed by this fault, would the right hon. Gentleman—I am being serious—consider sending in engineers into the special intercepting equipment that was provided in Whitehall a few years ago which allowed the interception of hon. Members' calls as well as a whole range of other calls throughout Whitehall? Is it not likely that that is where the fault is, and that these poor ordinary engineers do not know that the equipment exists?

Mr. Wakeham: I suspect that the remedy that the hon. Gentleman proposes would be considerably worse than the disease that he has at the moment. I congratulate him on using the Floor of the House of Commons to give out his cry for help. I have no doubt that somebody more qualified than I will come to his assistance.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House take time to read through the report of Northern Ireland Question Time today and perhaps

consider giving us a longer time if hon. Members persist in asking questions that appear to be more directed towards the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General? In the light of the comments already made about the proposed broadcast this evening, will he consider giving time for a debate in the House soon on the role of the media in representing or reporting terrorism?

Mr. Wakeham: How long to allocate for Question Time is an issue that is considered from time to time through the usual channels, and what the hon. Gentleman says is obviously one of the factors to be taken into consideration. I recognise also the importance of the other subject on which he wants a debate. While I agree that it is important, I do not believe that we can find time for a debate on it in the immediate future.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of a rather curious court decision last week, the bones of Edward, martyr and King of England, may reside not in Shaftesbury abbey, in my constituency, where they have rested for hundreds of years, but in Woking, in Surrey? Will he find time in the parliamentary week to allow me to put the case that these bones, belonging to a one-time King of England, should reside in Shaftesbury, where they belong?

Mr. Wakeham: I should be interested to hear further on this subject from my hon. Friend and I would have thought that an Adjournment debate was designed for raising subjects of this importance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen the early-day motion on the P and O dispute headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others and signed by 136 Labour Members of Parliament calling for a debate on this critical issue? Is he aware that Jeffrey Sterling, the P and O boss, was employed by the Government when the trade union legislation was going through the House? Is he also aware that the company has contributed about £100,000 to Tory party funds? If anybody's funds should be sequestrated, it should be those of P and O for its role in the Zeebrugge disaster, and not those of the National Union of Seamen.

Mr. Wakeham: I reject entirely the disgraceful remarks that the hon. Gentleman made, using the privilege of the House to abuse somebody outside the House who cannot defend himself. The established service scheme is a voluntary arrangement and the decision of an individual shipping company to withdraw from the scheme is a matter for the company and the Merchant Navy establishment administration, and does not involve the Government. The Department of Transport safety regulations apply irrespective of how crews have been recruited. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked his surveyors to ensure that normal practices are followed in checking crew certification and witnessing safety drills for P and O's cross-Channel ferries.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House a question about the need for an urgent debate on matters affecting London. Will he consider once again the need for a special debate on London which can encompass the many problems faced by health authorities as a result of staff shortages—because of low pay, lack of accommodation and amalgamation of health authorities—the increasing planning and traffic


problems of London—caused by the lack of support for public transport—and increasing underfunding of many voluntary and social agencies which are trying to deal with the housing crisis that thousands of Londoners face? Since the abolition of the GLC and any form of democratic government across London, these problems have got worse, and it is in this House that this matter must be raised and debated. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an early date for a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I reject most of what the hon. Gentleman says. Nevertheless, I thought that I had given him a reasonably encouraging reply last week when I said that I recognised that it would be appropriate to have a debate on London, and that I would find an opportunity, I hoped in the not-too-distant future, for a debate. I cannot be any more forthcoming this week than I was last week.

Mr. David Winnick: As The Prime Minister has claimed sole responsibility for modifying the social security regulations, and virtually denied any responsibility for the mishap that occurred, will there be an opportunity for other Ministers to reply to that in the House of Commons? Is not the Leader of the House somewhat worried that the contempt that The Prime Minister has shown towards the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, all within two weeks, will be shown towards him in due course?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but it would be better if he listened to what my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister said, which was that the Government had come to a decision, and we were congratulated by the Leader of the Opposition on that decision.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the removal by the Government of the discretion previously given to local authorities to provide free milk for all children in special schools? Is the Leader of the House aware that in Greenacres school, in my constituency. the majority of the children no longer receive free milk and the devoted staff in that school, which I visited this morning, and in all other special schools throughout the country, are appalled at this squalid, mean and nasty act?

Mr. Wakeham: The House continually discusses the priorities of how public money should be spent, but I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman a debate in the next week or so.

Mr. Frank Cook: I refer the Leader of the House to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—the announcement of the judgment in the other place relating to the nuclear test veterans. I found his answer disappointing, if I heard it correctly. My right hon. Friend referred to the need for a judicial review and to establish a major compensation fund, and the need to debate those issues. Can the Leader of the House work out how long it is since a debate was held in Government time? Will he accept that since the war, Governments, of whatever political persuasion, have treated these young men and women shabbily? They gave the prime of their life to the service of their country, and their terrible inheritance is

visited not only upon them but upon their sons arid daughters and their grandsons and granddaughters. We need to discuss this subject. Therefore, will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Wakeham: I did not say that we should not debate these important issues. We should read the judgment, think about it and decide what we should say before opening our mouths. That is a reasonable proposition, and one that I have enunciated from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Given what the Leader of the House said about leaving it to the programme makers to decide what is shown and what is not shown, will he find time next week for a debate on the gross political interference by the Foreign Secretary, who attempted to browbeat the IBA and prevent the showing tonight of the "This Week" programme on the killings in Gibraltar? Does he understand that on both sides of the House there is increasing distaste with the regular attempts by the Government to interfere with the editorial independence and integrity of the broadcasters?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman speaks on home affairs for his party. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out to the chairman of the IBA the dangers of allowing to be shown a programme that interviews potential witnesses at the Gibraltar coroner's inquest, which is to be held under the proper law later this year. That the hon. Gentleman expresses no concern about the interference that could happen to a proper carriage of justice in these matters I find very disappointing.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read the publication entitled "Westminster's dirty dozen, the real face of Conservatives in local government"? It is about the activities of Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster council, and the policies pursued under her administration. I am sure that the Leader of the House knows Lady Porter, who is a sub-Thatcherite without The Prime Minister's low cunning.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Phrases of that kind do not add to our debates.

Mr. Banks: The Government are always ready to interfere in the affairs of town halls and to inspire debates about local government. In view of that, may we have an early debate on the real scandal of Conservative local government in Westminster, perhaps in the context of a London-wide debate, if not about Westminster specifically? We should like to be able to address our attention to the scandal of the sale of three graveyards in Westminster for 15p which Lady Porter now trying to buy back for millions at the cost of Westminster's ratepayers. If that was a Labour-controlled council, there would be an unstoppable demand by Conservative Members for an early debate to surcharge its councillors. Let us have a bit of justice in the House.

Mr. Wakeham: It would not be right to debate this matter in the House at this time. It is not entirely a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps he could persuade them to use an Opposition day for such a debate. The matters about


which the hon. Gentleman has spoken are serious and will be properly dealt with in accordance with the rules and laws of this country.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Early in business questions the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) specifically stated that the national executive of the Labour party had passed a motion that supported the use of violence in the P and O industrial dispute in Dover. Thirteen members of the national executive committee of the Labour party are Members of this House. The motion about which the hon. Member for Dover spoke was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and seconded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It must surely be out of order for any hon. Member falsely to accuse 13 hon. Members of advocating the use of violence in industrial disputes when they have patently not done so. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule that the hon. Member for Dover must apologise.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only a few days since you said that you wanted better standards in the House. The most baseless accusation had been made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), and surely it is right and proper that he should be forced to apologise. If he is allowed to get away with what he said—which was totally untrue—then surely the wish that you expressed for better standards will go unheeded. The hon. Member for Dover, who does not seem to be here—[HON. MEMBERS:"He is."]—should have the guts immediately to apologise.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot be held responsible for what hon. Members say in the House, provided that what they say is in order. I have no knowledge as to the truth or untruth of any of the comments that are made. The comment by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was not particularly helpful, but there are other parliamentary ways to deal with the matter.

Mr. Dobson: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the logic of your ruling is that if I were to say at the Dispatch Box at this minute that I thought that members of the Government were lining their pockets that would be out of order, but that if I were to say that they were using their offices in order to benefit their own ends I would remain in order. I should be grateful if you would give further consideration to this matter.

Mr. Speaker: We have rules in the House that the Chair will always enforce. We also have conventions, one of which is that we do not refer to each other in uncomplimentary terms. I accept that what the hon. Member for Dover said was highly controversial, but it is not within my power to force him to withdraw. Allegations are frequently made in the House—some were made during business questions—but I cannot adjudicate on whether they are right or wrong.

Mr. Brian Gould: As one of those traduced by the allegations made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), may I say that I and my hon. Friends find ourselves in a particular difficulty. We are precluded

by well understood rules enforced by you, Mr. Speaker, from accusing the hon. Gentleman of uttering that falsehood. We cannot accuse him of perpetrating a lie. That means that we are precluded from resisting and refusing to accept that false allegation. Therefore, we have no alternative but to ask you to protect us.
It seems that where a clearly false statement has been made it would be at least as unacceptable to the House, and surely to you, Mr. Speaker, if we were to respond by describing that false statement as a lie. Is it possible for you to ensure that that false statement is withdrawn and its falsity acknowledged?

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot be held responsible for deciding whether what is said in the Chamber is true or false. I have no knowledge of any resolutions passed today. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says. There are other parliamentary ways for this matter to be dealt with if that is considered necessary. [Interruption.] Order. I do not think that it can be dealt with through the Chair.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Sir. It is in the knowledge of the House—[Interruption.]—if I can get a word in. It is in the knowledge of the House that a few moments ago you reprimanded my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for a mild quip about The Prime Minister, but the honourable—in quotes—Gentleman on the other side reflected on the honour of some of my colleagues. That is an entirely different matter, Sir, and we have to ask you please to protect Members on this side when they are accused of dishonourable activities, as was the case a few moments ago.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me, but if the hon. Member for Dover felt able to clarify the matter it might help the whole House.

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not these points of order from the Opposition portray a little sensitivity on this matter of violence in picketing? Would not the way out be for you to consult the Leader of the House so that we might have a debate next week in which the Opposition can clear up this ambiguity about violence on the picket lines?

Mr. Max Madden: I should like to raise a separate matter with you, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member for Dover is a liar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Madden.

Mr. Madden: I should like to raise a point of order on a separate matter concerning the Economic League. I regret having to raise this matter further with you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has written to me further on this matter as a matter of privilege. He knows that, following the decision of the House on 6 February 1978, these matters may not be raised with me in the House. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my further reply to his letter.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to what the Opposition Front-Bench


spokesmen have said about these accusations, and I am inclined to think that the hon. Member who made them is definitely a liar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows he cannot make such allegations in the Chamber against another hon. Member. We are all honourable Members here. I accept that what the hon. Member for Dover said was not particularly helpful. I drew attention to it at the time. I cannot be held responsible for what he has said; that is a matter for him.

Mr. Powell: If I cannot say that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is a liar, are you suggesting that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen who were the subject of those accusations are liars? They have defended their actions and stated quite clearly and categorically that what the hon. Member for Dover said was definitely untrue. I should like to have your interpretation, Mr. Speaker, of who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth and who should withdraw his statement and who should not.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that it would be helpful if the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) were to get us out of this difficulty so that we might move on.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions. The reason I put my question in that manner was that, quite properly, having listened to your ruling, I adjudged that the hon. Member who had accused me of cheating did so in a form and in a manner for which I could take him to court, and I am doing so. He did that outside the House.
I have taken the necessary precautions. I believe that this is the correct way to proceed. One must look at the correct procedures for dealing with these matters, and not use up the time of the House, as has been happening, on matters that can be dealt with in other ways.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not make any judgments about what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said or about the views of those on the national executive of the Labour party, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), from a sedentary position, to shout, "Liar"? Surely it would be appropriate—we all heard him—for him to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: All kinds of allegations of untruths are alleged in this Chamber even this afternoon. I did not hear the comment. I have already dealt with the question of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who raised the use of the word. The House should reflect carefully on allegations made across the Chamber. The comment of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was not helpful, but it was made in a general sense and was not an allegation against individual hon. Members. I have no authority to force him to withdraw it. It would have been helpful for the whole House if he had felt able to do so.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members do not challenge your ruling, but many of us find it a revelation that we would rather not have found. Thirteen of my right hon. and hon. Friends are accused of supporting violence. It is a totally false allegation, and that fact is provable by the text of the resolution to which the hon. Member for Dover (Mr.

Shaw) referred. It was not a generalised accusation. It was a specific allegation about the national executive of the Labour party.
If the rules of the House do not allow you to get an apology out of the hon. Member for Dover, the customs of the House require the Tory Whips, who are so famous for their discipline, to get an apology out of him. Having voted last week to take disciplinary action against a Labour party Member in support of the rules, customs and practices of the House, Opposition Members will feel bitterly let down if the Conservative party does not apply the same standards to its own Members.

Mr. Speaker: Let me finally deal with this matter. Again I say, in view of the exchanges, it would have been helpful if the hon. Member for Dover had felt able to say something. I entirely accept what the Shadow Leader of the House said about the integrity of his colleagues. I hope that we can now move on.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we do not use the word "liar", because we work on the basis that we are honourable Members, however much we may disagree with each other. Even if he did not know it at the time, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) must now know that his statement was a lie. In the circumstances——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only the hon. Member for Dover can say whether what he meant——

Mr. David Shaw: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Shaw: There are some points on which I may be able to help the House. There is a question mark over the point that I made earlier, insofar as I referred, I think, to the Labour party and its general support following [he motion that was passed.
In view of the fact that at least two hon. Members are on the picket line at the moment and, as I understand it, are encouraging the very acts to which I referred earlier, I would not feel that I could wholly withdraw. I believe it to be a true statement in defence of my constituents and their interests. Nevertheless, if the national executive of the Labour party withdraws the motion that it passed yesterday, I might be in a position to reconsider next week.

Mr. Gould: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard a disgraceful attempt to inflame a quite unnecessarily difficult situation brought about by the false statement that was made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). His statement levelled an accusation in terms at the national executive of the Labour party, of which I am a member, and accused us of passing a resolution that supported the use of violence.
I know the terms of that resolution. Its terms are available to any hon. Member who cares to read them. Within 10 seconds the resolution can be handed to any hon. Member who cares to check it. It has been widely circulated and published in the press. I invite the hon. Gentleman to take this copy and to find within its terms any phrase or word that will support a scintilla of what he has said. His was a deliberate and false allegation, which he has not only failed to withdraw but compounded with further insult.
I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that you can tolerate that type of behaviour, and I call upon you to protect the rights of the House to proper and decent standards.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Dover did not feel able to clarify what he said. He must take responsibility for it.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has made the whole matter worse. He said that two hon. Members are in Dover encouraging illegal actions. He made that claim without any evidence whatsoever. If we are to maintain this business of our being honourable Members, it is an outrage for the hon. Gentleman to say that two hon. Members are outside the House condoning illegal action. That is an example of double standards, and the hon. Gentleman should be made to withdraw his dishonest, discreditable and calumnious statement

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must end the matter there.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a disappointing result to the points of order. I am not responsible for anything that goes on outside the House. I am not responsible for anything that the hon. Member for Dover says—I wish that I were.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has made two statements that he knows to be untrue. They have been fully refuted by the Opposition Members against whom he made the allegation. You have quite clearly asked him to withdraw the statement, and he has quite clearly refused to do so. The House is now entitled to know what action you intend to take in respect of the hon. Member's behaviour this afternoon to ensure that there is some consistency in the treatment of hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I did not ask him to withdraw it. I called him, because I hoped that he would make a helpful explanation to the House to enable us to move on. We should now move on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 16 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Sydney Chapman
Sir Fergus Montgomery
Mr. Stanley Orme

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made an allegation about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), because they are the two Members who are on the picket line in Dover, as indeed will be a large number of Opposition Members as long as the dispute lasts. That is a perfectly legitimate action for them to be taking. The hon. Member for Dover has linked those two Members with the story that appeared on the front page of the Evening Standard.

That is what he said, and that is a disgraceful and unacceptable thing for any Member to say about two other hon. Members. Everyone in the House knows that, whatever may be said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, they would not in any way be associated with the sort of disgraceful action that was reported in the Evening Standard. For all we know that door in Dover might have been daubed by an Evening Standard reporter in order to get a story, because that is the way such people normally go about inciting the sort of troubles that the Member for Dover comes here to talk about.
We cannot allow our right hon. and hon. Friends to be so scurrilously attacked by the hon. Member for Dover and must ask you yet again, Mr. Speaker, to insist that the hon. Member for Dover withdraws his remarks and apologises to the House. If he does not, Mr. Speaker, you must name him, because what he has done is as grave a discourtesy and an insult as anything that has happened here in recent weeks.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Well, I will hear it, and then we will get on.

Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful to you, Sir. You will know that most of us in the House—indeed, I would say the whole Chamber, with one or two exceptions—have great admiration for your Speakership and always respond when you make a request that we should withdraw a comment or correct some improper word. Nearly every hon. Member does that. In this unfortunate case, you have made an appeal to the so-called honourable Member and he has not had the guts, the courage or the honesty to respond to it. Unfortunately, I cannot call him an honourable liar, but—we are surrounded by honourable Members this afternoon—I can call him an honourable shit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot do that; it offends in every possible way. Kindly withdraw, if not the "honourable", the last word, which I will not repeat.

Mr. Faulds: With my rich vocabulary I could think of two or three worse words, Mr. Speaker, but to oblige you I will withdraw the word "shit". There are lots of other words that would suitably apply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Terry Patchett: Why is it so difficult to find a truth in this House when it appears so easy to hide an untruth?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I sought to give the hon. Member an opportunity to correct this matter in order that we could move on. I am sorry that what he said really compounded the problem rather than offered a solution to it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, ETC.

Ordered,
That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day — Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, which comes here from another place, is, as every hon. Member can see, lengthy and complex. It has 285 clauses and eight schedules. Its subject matter—copyright, designs and patents—is highly technical. It will probably be a great disappointment to some hon. Members to know that, as far as I am aware, it is devoid of any party political controversy. It is, nevertheless, a Bill of great significance to many people. Its effects will be felt to a greater or lesser degree by almost every sector of the economy. It will affect the music industry—composers, musicians, music publishers, record companies—which generates more than £1,000 million each year. It will affect those engaged in the publication of books and newspapers. It will affect the design effort in British industry. It will provide a legal framework for broadcasting and cable transmission. It will also affect the computer software industry, the film industry, the pharmaceutical industry and many more industries.
The effects of the Bill are not confined solely to business and industry. It has implications for education, the library service, the theatre and even the Great Ormond street hospital. It takes within its compass the artist painting at his easel and the designer of a semiconductor chip, the local operatic society in the village hall and the signals beamed from a television satellite.
I am sure that we are all agreed on the need to promote and protect creative talent. The House has to begin by accepting that a man's idea is as much his personal property as his more tangible assets, such as his house and his car. In some respects, indeed, a man's ideas are an even more important part of his personal property. That concept underlies all intellectual property law, whether it is copyright protection for artists and authors or patent protection for inventors. By establishing a property right in the idea, the law gives protection against those who would steal another man's ideas.

Mr. Roland Boyes: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, one of my major interests is photography and the interests of photographers. The Bill has a quite severe effect on photographers in certain areas and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—not necessarily in his speech, but later—will look into that. The Lords did change some parts of the copyright to enable a photograph to enjoy the same rights as literary works, but I should particularly like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at clause 30, the new wording of which would destroy the livelihood of many photographers, clauses 73 to 85 on moral rights and clause 156 on territorial waters. All those clauses greatly affect photographers. All I ask of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the moment is that when

the Government put amendments in the Bill they will try to give as full protection to photographers as to any other artists or thinkers.

Mr. Clarke: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is right in saying that I could have added photographers of all kinds to the list of people that I just described as being affected by the Bill. We have to get the balance correct between the rights of the photographer, those who employ the photographer, those who commission photographs, those who publish them, and so on. Some extremely difficult issues are raised. The hon. Gentleman will know, as he has probably followed the debates in another place, that it is difficult to get the balance right between the conflicting interests. Important issues for photograhers will be raised in Committee when we get to those sections of the Bill that deal with ownership of copyright or the so-called moral rights of the photographer, which I will come back to in a moment when I deal with the moral rights of authors and others covered by the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman's intervention underlined, we are talking in every part of the Bill about a person's basic property rights in his own ideas and his own artistic work.
Our system of legal protection for ideas has served us well, ensuring dissemination of ideas with a proper degree of protection for the innovator. But it has become apparent recently, particularly in copyright and design protection, that the law needs looking at again, especially in the light of technical developments that have taken place in various fields and were not always anticipated when the law was drawn up.
The Bill is the result of a very long period of consideration and consultation with all the interest groups affected, dating back to the Whitford report of 1977. Since then we have had three Green Papers and the 1986 White Paper, entitled "Intellectual Property and Innovation". The Government have changed certain ideas about policy even since the White Paper. Before coming to this House, the Bill was extensively considered in another place and a number of amendments were made there after further consideration of its details.
The Bill sets out to restructure the law on a more logical and consistent basis than the existing legislation and in a way which takes account of the advances made in the past 30 years. Where possible we have tried to anticipate future developments. The House will not wish to come back to this subject for some time, having passed such comprehensive legislation. Our overriding objective—hon. Members who have the pleasure of serving on the Committee will sometimes find this difficult to achieve—has been to ensure a fair balance between the need to encourage creativity by providing strong protection, and the justifiable desire of society and consumers to have access to and the use of the products of creativity. We are seeking to ensure a balance between protection and fair competition. We are seeking a system with bureaucracy reduced to a minimum. The Bill seeks to provide the means for those with ideas to get a fair reward for their work, without placing unfair burdens on the public at large.
The Bill is in seven parts, and I can be of most help to the House by briefly describing their main contents.
Part I is by far the biggest, making up more than half of the Bill. It sets out the law of copyright in a more ordered and logical way than the existing statute, the Copyright Act 1956, which is to be repealed. Part I is subdivided into no fewer than 10 chapters. Chapters 2 and


3 cover clauses 16 to 72. Chapter 2 sets out the rights which the copyright owner is to enjoy, of which the most fundamental is contained in clause 17: the right to prevent copying. The rights are extensive and we recognise that they must be tempered. There is a balance to be struck between the rights we are asking Parliament to grant to creators to encourage creativity and the effect that the full exercise of those rights may have on others. While it is right that copyright owners should be able to exploit their works to the full, it would not be right to confer rights which could be used oppressively. So chapter 2 protects the copyright owner.
Chapter 3 sets out a series of exceptions from copyright. These will ensure that copyright considerations do not unduly obstruct research, education, the library service or public administration. All these are areas where we think that the House will judge that the public interest is that the work may be used within clearly defined limits, without recourse to the copyright owner.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that a reason for the Bill was to bring up to date the law as it affects some of the newer industries, and that is absolutely right. Is he aware that clause 63 seems to have a loophole which would allow for software theft, which has been estimated at about £50 million a year, by allowing firms to rent out software after a year? Will he agree to consider that in Committee? Many people feel strongly that if it is not put right it will restrict and damage investment in both computers and computer software industries. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend, of all people, would not want that to happen and that that is not his intention. If he would undertake to consider that, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend raises a serious and difficult issue. The Government are not altogether satisfied that we have the balance right. This part covers the so-called rental rights whereby after a given period someone can be free to hire out a product without recourse to the copyright owner of that product. We are all used to that in our daily lives with videos. Perfectly legitimate businesses have sprung up which rent videos which are somebody else's copyright, without anybody thinking that that gives rise to hardship to the copyright owner or that there is anything illegitimate about it. Businesses may spring up to rent compact discs which are almost indestructible. People will borrow them, make a perfect copy and return them without paying the full cost to the manufacturer or the composer. My hon. Friend raises the equivalent case for computer software designers. If after a year software can be hired out, once again a copy can be made without paying the full price to its author. It is extremely difficult to get the balance right. We do not want creators to exploit their copyright to an onerous extent on consumers who may want access to it, but strong reservations are held about the Bill as it stands.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take the Bill through Committee and he has been in charge of the main policy issues. He will certainly continue to consider the matter and it is his duty to get the balance right in the end. He tells me that he is meeting the British Computer Society next

week to discuss the implications for those who design computer software and he will consider my hon. Friend's point. As the Bill passes through the House we shall have to consider it carefully to ensure that the results are correct.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the difficulties that he has identified in clause 63 may result from the fact that the period of protection given by record rental is only one to two years? As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) suggested, perhaps we should consider a longer period, for example seven to 10 years.

Mr. Clarke: A period of one year is specified in the Bill and we could have an interesting debate on the proposition to extend that. I am sure that that will give rise in Committee to debates about how long music remains exploitable from the date that a record is made. Different considerations may arise for computer software and videos, and it would be nice to draft a clause that served the public interest properly for all times of copyright subject to rental right.
Consideration of the protection period is only one possible approach. Ministers have already canvassed a variety of propositions in our discussions and we look forward to having further propositions canvassed in Committee.
Chapter 4 introduces another new concept to our copyright law—the so-called moral rights of authors. The authors of certain classes of copyright works and the directors of copyright films are to have the right to be identified as the author or director and the right to object to distortions and mutilations of their works. Obviously, it may be damaging to the reputation of an author, photographer or any artist if his work is used in a deliberately distorted or mutilated form. His reputation is damaged by the use of something that began as his work. There are two versions of these so-called moral rights. They are usually known in jargon as the paternity right and the integrity right, and they will help authors and directors to establish and defend their artistic reputations. The introduction of moral rights, together with other technical amendments in the Bill, will also allow us to ratify the latest text of the Berne copyright convention. That is the most important of the international copyright conventions and it is our declared intention to ratify the Paris text once the Bill is on the statute book.
Chapters 9 and 10 cover clauses 148 to 169 and contain technical provisions and various definitions. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is about to rise. Having seen what he said in business questions last Thursday, I can anticipate the point that he is about to raise.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend's foresight. The clause does something which the House of Commons should not possibly allow: it deprives the House of its right of control over its property. Therefore, it breaches that fundamental principle of our constitution which provides that the House of Commons is independent of the Crown and should not in any way allow the Crown to control its proceedings.
It would make a mockery of our traditional claim of right by Mr. Speaker at every opening of Parliament, for the independence of the House of Commons with regard


to its own domestic affairs. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say that at the Committee stage this part of the Bill will be amended so as to leave intact the integrity of the House of Commons.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has not yet moved on to another point. He is still dealing with the one that he helpfully raised in business questions last Thursday. We have become aware, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, that the effects of clause 157 on the House and on another place could well be undesirable. Discussions have been taking place between officials of my Department and of the House, and I can say to my hon. Friend that we shall soon be in a position to table amendments, which I am sure will meet his legitimate concern. I can say yes to my hon. Friend's final question.
I expect that other representations on the Bill will not be so easily met. It is a feature of the Bill that on most issues that it raises there are two conflicting arguments coming from two conflicting interest groups, and hon. Members will tend to divide their support. With regard to the interests of the House, I am glad to say that we are all on the same side and we can meet the concern of my hon. Friend.
Part II is concerned with performers, who are a distinct category of creative talent. Under the existing law performers have no copyright or statutory civil right in their performances. The Performers' Protection Acts from 1958 to 1972 treat the making of unauthorised films, sound recordings, broadcast or cable transmission of performances as a criminal matter only.
It is far from satisfactory that the only protection for a performer is to contemplate a criminal prosecution of someone making unauthorised use of his performance. It was criticised by the Court of Appeal in a recent case concerning film performances by the late Peter Sellers. Although Peter Sellers' widow was successful in that case, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the present state of the law was far from satisfactory.
Part II retains the existing criminal provisions but supplements them with a clear statutory framework of civil law for the protection of performers. New rights are also provided for those with whom the performer has an exclusive recording contract, since they are also adversely affected by unauthorised or "bootleg" recordings. All this will put the law on a more sensible and enforceable basis for performers who are adversely affected.
Parts III and IV deal with designs. The protection of designs has been a very difficult and contentious issue for many years. We believe that we are now near to striking the right balance in the Bill. We start from the basic premise that all original designs deserve limited protection. It is not only wrong if a new product can be copied in its entirety as soon as it comes on the market, but it discourages the design effort needed to make a new product if a competitor can in any case copy it straightaway. We are, therefore, providing a new right for original designs, which will give protection against copying for a five-year period and a right to remuneration for a further five years after that.
But as with copyright, so with design right. The right must not be one that can be used oppressively or unduly against the interests of the consumer. We must not stifle fair competition, particularly in spare parts. Because spare parts have to fit the product for which they are intended,

they must to some extent be a copy of the original design. An unfettered design right could be used by the manufacturers of original equipment to ensure that only they could supply spare parts. That would give rise to a near monopoly for some spare parts, which would be wrong.
On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to allow totally free copying of all spare parts. The Bill will, therefore, allow copying where there is no design freedom for either functional or aesthetic reasons. When I say that there is no design freedom, certain basic things have to be put into a spare part if it is to fit and match the product for which it is intended.
Where there is full design freedom, competitors will have to create their own designs. That will apply to all articles, whether or not they are spare parts. The result will be that copying will be allowed where necessary, and where competition can still occur, but designers will be protected from those who would copy when there is no need for them to do so.
The Registered Designs Act will be amended so that protection will be available only for truly aesthetic, stand-alone designs. Competitors do not need to be able to copy such designs to compete effectively. The term of protection for registered designs is to be increased from a maximum of 15 years to 25 years. All this will ensure that design effort is encouraged without stifling competition, or leaving consumers open to the exploitation of a monopoly position.
We are making changes in parts V and VI to open up the intellectual property system and make it more accessible to its users. The restrictions on who may act for inventors and other applicants in dealings with the Patent Office are to be lifted. The constraints on mixed practices—for example, of patent agents and venture capital advisers—will be relaxed. At present, patent litigation is conducted in the High Court. Many small and innovative firms find that High Court proceedings are so expensive and complex that their patent rights are effectively worthless because they cannot afford to enforce them.
It is of course pointless for Parliament to pass legislation that makes it so expensive to pursue a remedy in the courts that no one cart use it, except the very large firms that are adversely affected by some unfair competition. Because only the High Court has jurisdiction, inventors find that sometimes they cannot afford to seek the protection of the law. Similarly, small firms sometimes find it difficult to defend themselves against a large competitor that brings an action against them for an alleged infringement of a patent. I am glad to say that we have established in clauses 267 to 272 the basis of a patents jurisdiction in the county court. We believe that this will significantly reduce cost and complexity, thus enabling smaller firms to compete on a more level footing with larger companies.
The House may be aware that a Bill introduced in the previous Parliament sought to lift the licence of right provisions of the Patents Act 1977 as they applied to patents for pharmaceuticals granted under the Patents Act 1949. That Bill,. which had Government support, fell on dissolution and we have taken this opportunity to reintroduce its provisions.
Finally, part VII contains a number of miscellaneous, but none the less important, provisions. The Government, and I trust the whole House, are firmly opposed to counterfeiting and piracy and we want to stamp out those


practices. Those who steal other people's property or who hitch a free ride on the reputations of established businesses will not get any support from the Government, or this House. We know that several British firms suffer from piracy of their products, and often it is the most blatant imitation of their products where the quality of the original is nowhere near matched by the inferior imitation that is put on the market.
Clause 279 introduces substantial new criminal provisions which will prove an invaluable weapon in the fight against product counterfeiting. In particular, I am glad to say that we are taking the opportunity to make the fraudulent use of a trade mark a criminal offence, which will make it very much easier for companies to defend themselves against cheap copies from overseas, particularly from the far east. These changes, taken with the improvement in the sanctions against copyright piracy and bootlegging in parts I and II of the Bill, will, I hope, eliminate these very real threats to legitimate industry.
The Government are continuing to press the case for the European Community Trade Marks Office to be sited in London. In my opinion, it is clearly the best location. Clause 281 provides the necessary statutory authority for financial assistance to be given to the office if sited here.

Mr. Iain Mills: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has seen the new site of the office where we intend to house the Trade Marks Office at St. Katharine's by the Tower, but has he seen it recently?

Mr. Clarke: I have been there recently. I know that my hon. Friend has been leading a campaign on the matter for some time. The Government wholly support it and we are seeking to impress on the Commission and other members of the Community the case for establishing the European Trade Marks Office in London. There is no doubt that the various contenders are all offering financial support for the office, whether it be in London, Munich or Madrid. For that reason, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome clause 281, which gives us a statutory authority to match the financial provision that is being offered by rivals.
My brief review of the Bill's provisions would be incomplete without at least a passing reference to clause 280. Great Ormond street hospital is to enjoy a perpetual right to a royalty in respect of certain types of exploitation of "Peter Pan". The Bill ensures that sick children in Great Ormond street will continue to benefit, in spite of the fact that the copyright in the play bequeathed to the hospital expired at the end of 1987.
The Bill does not contain any provision for a blank tape levy. I expect that some of my hon. Friends will be disappointed by that. Whether there should be a levy on blank tape, to provide an income for owners of copyright who think that they are deprived of revenue because copies are taken of their work, has aroused strong feelings for some time. There have been frequent changes of mind by most of those involved. However, we have finally decided that it would be wrong, indefensible and going beyond the principles of the rest of the Bill to try to introduce a blank tape levy that the Government would impose on purchasers of tape and distribute to aggrieved copyright holders.
Although I accept that copyright is difficult to enforce against people who use blank tape to copy, imposing a levy

would go beyond the principle of the Bill, which is that we are passing legislation providing legal protection for the intellectual property of the creative artist. It is a step beyond that to say that if the creative artist has difficulty in enforcing copyright, somehow we must levy a new tax to provide a compensating fund that will be distributed to artists who feel aggrieved. If we had a levy, it would involve the Government in the collection of a whole new tax to provide the copyright owner with a financial reward. A new bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect and distribute the proceeds of the levy. The administration cost of any such scheme would almost certainly be disproportionate to the amount of money that was raised.
We were also unhappy about the rough justice element of the levy proposals. Not every blank tape is used to record copyright material, so a levy would be an unfair imposition on many people. Many of those who look to benefit from the levy would be happy to see an element of rough justice imposed on those from whom the money is to be raised, but all attempts to compensate for the rough justice element did not prove workable. Even if one had had a system that enabled some people to have a rebate on the levy if they could demonstrate that they were not copying copyright, they would have been put to the needless inconvenience of making a claim for the rebate. That would have been particularly hard for the blind and visually handicapped, who make extensive use of blank tape in their everyday lives.
We are also not sure whether the whole benefit of the levy would have gone to the performers and the record companies that had a legitimate interest in pressing for it. A levy could have been marked up in the retail chain, with the result that the burden on the consumer would have been considerably more, with those in the retail chain standing to gain almost as much as those for whom the levy was intended.
For all those reasons, the Government have decided not to proceed with the levy. I accept that it is a matter of balance, which is why the Government changed their mind collectively once or twice, as did several hon. Members. But we have come down firmly on the side of the consumer against a levy proposal that we believed was not on all fours in principle with the remainder of the Bill and would have been a costly bureaucracy, creating some unfair burdens on purchasers of blank tape.
As a consolation to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who might still be attracted by the levy, we have undertaken to table an amendment to the Bill outlawing so-called anti-spoiler devices, which override signals intended by the copyright owner to prevent copying. Copyright owners are seeking to protect themselves against the problem that they face by devising spoiler devices, which would stop anybody using blank tape to copy the original article. As technical advances are made, it is predictable that people might try to put on the market anti-spoiler devices, so that copies could be made of material that the vendor intended should be proof against copying. If the copyright owners are successful in producing spoiler devices, we shall be content to amend the Bill to make sure that the sale of anti-spoiler devices is rendered illegal.
As I am sure I have adequately shown, the Bill is extremely long and sometimes complex, but it has implications for almost every walk of life. I am sure that those attending the debate realise that this aspect of


intellectual property is as important as any other sort of property. It is important to a modern economy that we protect human creativity properly.
People in this country will continue to have ideas, with or without the Bill, but if we are to get the best from those ideas we need an environment in which they can flourish. The Bill provides a framework of legal protection, which should cultivate and nourish creativity. It will provide a fair balance between the providers and users of intellectual property. It will set out the law in a much clearer way than before. It takes account of the rapid pace of technological advance. It makes the intellectual property system more relevant and accessible to the needs of British business. In short, the Bill will encourage creative talent, enterprise and fair competition. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bryan Gould: As the Minister claimed, the Bill is a welcome, not to say courageous, attempt to reform a complex and difficult area. I think that everybody recognises that the present state of the law is unsatisfactory. out of date and needs reform. For example, the Copyright Act 1956 has been described by a High Court judge as labyrinthine. No one will disagree with that. Whether the present Bill, with its 285 clauses and eight schedules, can easily he acquitted of the same charge we have yet to see.
It is clear that the ground has been prepared carefully by Governments of varying political persuasions over a long period. As the Minister said, perhaps the beginning of that process was the Whitford report of 1977. There have been Green Papers and a major White Paper since then. At various stages, Governments and others have changed their mind on important matters that arise in the attempt to reform. I make the modest prediction now that further and, indeed, substantial changes are yet to come, perhaps not least on some of the matters that the Minister touched upon in his speech.
It may be asked whether all that effort is worth while. The answer that we in the Opposition give, which I am sure is the same as the Minister's, is that of course it is worth while. It is an extremely important industry. It is sometimes difficult to define, but it is undoubtedly important. Estimates of its economic importance vary. A useful small study was carried out by the Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property. I think that Jennifer Phillips was the author. It was published in 1985 and was called "The Economic Importance of Copyright". Jennifer Phillips' estimate was that the copyright industries, which she defined very narrowly and modestly as industries that directly and substantially depend on copyright for their commercial viability, accounted for 2·6 per cent. of gross domestic product, which meant that in importance they exceeded both the motor car and food manufacturing industries. It should be noted that that definition excluded the functional design aspect of manufacturing and the rapidly growing computer service industry. A more generous view of the importance of the industry was taken last year by the Confederation of Information Communication Industries, which estimated a total turnover of over £20 billion, which it put at over 7 per cent. of GDP.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the industry is not just its current importance to our economy, although that is substantial, but the potential that it holds for our

future economic development. I think that there are few people who would look to a successful British economy without seeing that economy developing in the direction of new technologies, particularly information technology, computers and data processing, as well as building on our well-known successes in the older and better established copyright industries such as publishing, films, music and so on. In other words, it is important—we in the Opposition recognise this—to make it clear that we see a future for the British economy that is not the low-tech, no-tech future that the Chancellor of the Exchequer notoriously, on one occasion, professed to see as the way forward. We shall perhaps carry the whole House today in recognising that great efforts are required to ensure that our future lies in the high-tech, science-based industries—industries that call upon the talents and skills of our people.
If we are to do that, of course we have to provide an appropriate legal framework so that those ideas can be developed. We must ensure that the research is done. We must give priority to the spirit of inquiry and to the pursuit of knowledge which has served us so well in the past. However, we must do more than that. As the Minister said, we must establish a climate in which such enterprise can flourish. Let me widen the debate for a moment. We need not just a legal framework but Government support and the provision of resources. In that context, today's news that the Science museum has at long last been compelled by Government parsimony to propose entrance charges—the last of the south Kensington museums to do so—sits ill with the Minister's commendable concern for providing the right framework for the development of scientific and other knowledge.
The proper regulation of copyright involves a great number of difficulties, most of which the Minister identified, and we entirely agree with him on them. However, our interpretation may differ a little at times. The first problem is that the whole business of developing knowledge, conducting research and taking the fruits of that research has become increasingly international in nature. The sale of the products of the older industries—the publishing, film and music industries—is increasingly international, and the use of computers and information technology means that it is yet more difficult in today's climate to grapple effectively on a national basis with the problems thrown up by the unfair or illegal exploitation of people's property in an international context. That is why we welcome the emphasis that the Bill places on the need to ensure that not only do we establish our own legal framework but that this country—traditionally a pioneer in these matters—shows the way to others and ensures that they can follow that way. That is why we welcome the Minister's declaration of intention on the Berne convention and strongly support his proposed measures to stamp out some of the abuses that arise, not so much in this country—although they do arise here—but overseas.
The confederation estimates that copyright piracy alone costs more than £500 million per annum. My friend's in the Open university are very clear that there is an extremely fruitful and profitable trade open to them through the sale of their excellent educational materials around the world if only they could be sure that those materials would not be pirated and sold off with no return to them. Because that happens, they are denied that lucrative market. It is important that we should establish not just a domestic but an international framework in


which such abuses can be dealt with. It is also correct to say that the problems of copyright are matched entirely by problems of patent protection, which is why we very much welcome the measure on counterfeiting.
The real problems in regulating copyright arise from a number of difficulties peculiar to the kind of property that we are discussing. The first of those problems bedevils much of the Bill and no doubt accounted for many man and woman hours of drafting and deliberation. It is the problem of defining the property that we are trying to protect. In 1709, it was possible to say of the first modern Copyright Act, the Act of Ann, that it was for
the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books.
It is not only the sexism of that description that is outdated. While the principle remains the same, we have now moved into an era in which the products of human skill and ingenuity take many different forms. We preserve those products in many different ways. It is not just the printed page but the computer disk, not just the work of art but the sound or video recording to which we must now give the protection of the law of property. New technology and fresh developments in knowledge have produced new forms of property, and one of the major problems to be dealt with in the Bill is the definition of that property and those whose interests in it deserve protection.
New technology has thrown up another range of problems. It has ensured that that new form of property can be passed from hand to hand, traded in and exploited and can have its benefits appropriated in a whole range of ways which were not available 20 years ago and which are certainly not possible for other forms of property. The technology that has made this property and the benefits to he obtained from it almost infinitely capable of reproduction—the photocopier, sound and video recordings, the personal computer and the floppy disk—places in the hands of each of us, at virtually no outlay and with very little chance of detection, the means of taking the benefits of property created by and belonging to others.
We come now to the most interesting aspect of the Bill, from a more general point of view. The developments to which I have referred have brought even the Government to the realisation that there are problems that simply cannot be left to market forces alone. Let us be clear that the Bill is a massive exercise in intervention in the market. We approve of that; we are glad that the Government have recognised the need to intervene. However, it is worthwhile accepting and identifying the respects in which the market does not solve the problems. The point that I make is very similar to the one that the Minister himself conceded; it is the language that is different, and perhaps less acceptable to Conservative Members.
The market at present, if left to its own devices, poses two main and contradictory dangers. First, there is the danger that if excessive protection is provided to private ownership of the property of ideas, it will frustrate and inhibit the advance of knowledge to the very general disadvantage. In other words, it would allow the person who got there first to prevent the rest of us from following and it would allow restrictive practices to arise and to become a bar to further inquiry and the development of knowledge. Clearly, left to itself, the market is incapable of resolving that difficulty.
On the other hand, an inadequate protection of property rights would mean that there would be an inadequate return—perhaps none—to those prepared to invest time, money, skill and effort in the advancement of knowledge or the perfection of talents. That would prejudice the continued production of such property. The very property whose production the market was meant to stimulate would therefore be jeopardised.
We are dealing with a clear case of market failure. The need for intervention shows clearly that the market has its limitations—both in the individual's and in the public's interests. It also reveals one further element in the market, sometimes concealed in the more far-flung rhetoric of Conservative Members—the fact that the market is not a God-given or natural law institution that operates with a hidden hand to dispense justice or exercise moral judgments but a man-made social institution, created by rules that we, among others, make and have made. It is an institution that depends for its operation on rules to do with people's property rights, the sanctity of contracts and so on. The Bill is no less welcome for the fact that it makes that aspect of market operations clear.
The Minister concluded by referring to one possible candidate for inclusion in the Bill that did not make the final draft. The problem illustrates the difficulties to which I have just referred. On occasions, the market breaks down. It simply fails to reward those who produce the valuable property in a given area. Over recent years we have paid particular attention to the problems of the music industry. I want to say a word about that in a moment, but there are similar breakdowns in other spheres. In some cases, but not all, the Government have recognised the problem and have tried in varying ways to deal with it. There are problems in respect of photocopying and the copying of software; the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who intervened in the Minister's speech, pointed out that clause 63 gives cause for concern. There are problems about the recording of video productions and broadcasting cinematic films on television.
In all those cases the market breaks down in that, often because of a technological intervention, it fails to reward those who produced the property. Either the reward is never paid or it goes to somebody different. The Government are rightly aware of the danger that the incentive to go on producing is lost. Therefore, some means has to be found of rewarding those who are responsible for production so that production continues.
The view is widely held that the problem occurs most acutely in the music industry. It is easy sometimes for hon. Members to underestimate the importance of the music industry to the economy. I have the advantage of having been a lifelong fan of what is called, sometimes pejoratively, pop music. If over recent years my interest has flagged slightly, it has been rapidly revived by the insistence of my teenage children on playing such music loudly in our home. So in a sense I am compelled to continue my interest. Mostly it is an enjoyable pastime.
Pop music is not just the preoccupation of many younger citizens but is of considerable economic importance. The industry sold over £2 billion worth of goods in 1985. One in four of worldwide hit records originates in this country. The industry has produced overseas earnings of £400 million. It employs 26,000 people. In many respects it is a breeding ground for new


small businesses and for new talent. It is exactly the sort of industry which the Government have always proclaimed they wish to help.
The Government understand the problems which home taping cause for the music industry. It is difficult to quantify exactly how great the problem is, but I suspect that most of us are aware personally of instances where records are taped for the use of people who might in other circumstances have bought the records themselves. Sometimes, perhaps more justifiably, the purchaser of a record will tape it so that it can be played in a cassette recorder in a car, for instance. That is equally a denial of the return to which the producer of the music is entitled.
The Government cannot at this point say that they have changed their mind on the fundamental of the debate, which is that at one point they recognised that there was a substantial loss, difficult to quantify to the last pound, which unfairly prejudiced not only individuals and firms within the industry but the overall future of the industry. If the problem exists—as the Government were prepared to recognise in the Green Paper and in the White Paper—it is likely to get worse because the technology which created it will develop.
We already have compact discs. We will have digital audio tape. The rental business is flourishing. When the Bill was given a Second Reading in another place, the noble Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham painted a graphic picture of what he had seen in Japan, where people in huge numbers go to super-stores where they borrow for a small fee compact discs to record on their own cassette tapes; then they return the discs for other people to do likewise. No doubt that business will spread to other countries.
The problem has been recognised by the Government and it will get worse. In their White Paper the Government proposed the solution of a levy on blank tapes. No one would dispute that in many respects that is objectionable. We understand exactly what the Minister had in mind when he talked about the rough justice of that solution. But he did not adequately address the problem of the rough justice which is suffered by musicians and others who produce the music. That solution is also objectionable because it would prejudice various people such as the blind and educational institutions. If it is pursued, special arrangements would have to be made for some categories. We agree with the Minister's view that the collecting arrangements leave something to be desired. Certainly we would examine critically any solution which meant that money was passed back to major record companies but did not find its way to those who deserve the support and on whose efforts the future of the music industry depends. If a means were found of making a return to the producer of music, we would want to ensure that it encouraged small and new performers of innovative music and the parts of the music business which are inadequately rewarded but whose ingenuity has to be stimulated and encouraged if the industry is to have a future economically and culturally.
We share the objections to a levy on blank tapes. We do not want a system which merely makes Madonna richer but does not do anything for the creation of music. Having marched themselves up to the top of the hill, having reached the top of the hill, having got a clear view of the problem and having accepted that it is a difficult problem with which the music industry needs help, the Government cannot say. "We are turning our back on the problem; we shall march back to the bottom of the hill and leave things exactly as they are." The Government cannot go away

from it without attempting to deal with the problem. Apart from the interests of the music industry, the Government seem to have no intention of changing the law or of ensuring that the illegal taping done by millions our fellow citizens is brought to an end.
I do not dispute for a moment that it is a difficult problem, not just as it affects music. I urge the Government to recognise that they have a responsibility which they have not yet discharged. In Committee and on the remaining stages of the Bill we shall do what we can constructively to help the Government to reach at least a partial solution. I suspect that in this and other areas perfect solutions are not available and are not on the agenda, but the Government cannot be allowed to get away with offering no solution.
Let me now point to a further instance of the difficulties which arise in the Bill. The Minister drew attention to the provisions which attempt to deal with the issue of a design right. That has exercised many of us in the House and. indeed, people outside the House and in the other place. The problem arises because of the uncertain state of the law, which was left even more uncertain by the decision of the House of Lords in British Leyland v. Armstrong and by the intervention of the EEC Commission in the case of my constituent, the Ford Motor Company.
The problem is how to protect what is called in the Bill a design right. Although it is dealt with generally in the Bill by clause 198 and succeeding clauses, a particular problem arises in respect of spare parts. Let us be clear that. that is the case. On the one hand, a range of manufacturers, such as Ford and Hoover, take one view while, on the other hand, the specialist manufacturers of spare parts. quite understandably, take a different view.
The principles are very familiar. On the one hand, we need to protect the consumer against market abuse, but guard against excessive protection and, on the other hand, we must ensure that the originators and designers of products are given fair protection so that they continue to furnish the market with their products.
I assure the Minister that I do not intend to be critical, because we have no better solution to offer, but the Government's answer is a partial protection of design right, as contained in clause 198 and succeeding clauses. It is fair to say that the definitions have caused some difficulty. They caused extensive debate and difficulty in the other place, particularly in respect of what have become called the "must fit" and "must match" requirements—for example, the treatment of constituent parts of the whole item, such as a dinner service. We believe that the Government understand the problem and have made a genuine attempt, in good faith, to deal with it. However, as the Minister showed, the phrase "striking the right balance" is likely to figure largely in our deliberations on the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point, will he comment on the proposition put forward by the Confederation of British Industry and others to the effect that design copyright should not be excluded, but should exist alongside design right?

Mr. Gould: There are some obvious difficulties with design copyright, because it is a more extensive concept than design right. It swings the balance in favour of protection, as against free entry to the market. Those are


some of the points that Opposition Members—and members of the Committee—wish to look at carefully to strike the right balance. I made the point that, in the attempt to strike that balance, the Government have not convinced us that they have identified the right criterion. Whether a design must fit or must match another article is not self-evidently the issue which should decide whether a design secures protection or otherwise. What we are inclined to argue—we shall certainly return to this issue in Committee—is that it may be that the Government have approached what is undoubtedly a difficult problem from the wrong viewpoint. I offer the thought to the Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will wish to develop it in Committee—that it may be more effective and constructive to look at the problem in the same way as do other countries with similar problems. It is a problem of fair competition and of dealing with restrictive practices, rather than a problem relating to the protection of property rights
The Bill bristles with specific problems, but we accept that the Government have made an effort to resolve many of them. There is much in the Bill to be welcomed, which is why we do not propose to vote against it. We recognise the importance and value, for example, of the chapter on moral rights. That is a welcome change. That chapter provides moral rights for all kinds of authors and film directors. In view of earlier events in the Chamber this afternoon, one could wish that moral rights were provided also to the authors of the resolutions of the national executive committee of the Labour party. We have a moral right to ensure that the terms of such resolutions are not distorted when they are reported to this House.
We welcome also the attempt to grapple with new problems—for example, computer-generated designs, works of art and program. It is refreshing to see this legislature getting to grips with that problem ahead of anybody else in the world. We are the first legislature to recognise the advent—not here yet, but coming—of artificial intelligence.
We recognise also that a special balance has to be struck where the needs of education institutions are involved. We believe that the Government, broadly speaking, have that balance about right in respect of schools and libraries. However, that will not preclude us from tabling amendments that may improve those provisions.
I have mentioned already that we welcome the change in the law with regard to counterfeiting and the creation of a new criminal offence to deal with the wrongful use of trade marks. I am glad to offer again my support for the campaign in which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) has taken the lead, but in which we have both been involved. It is a campaign to establish a Community Trade Marks Office in this country. I had hoped that the Minister would have been able to offer, not only more information, but perhaps a slightly more optimistic assessment of our chances of obtaining that institution in Britain.
Some of our noble Friends in another place deserve credit for what has been become known as the "Peter Pan" clause. Given the perpetual nature of the rights obtained by the Great Ormond street hospital, it is an appropriate description of that clause, which we support.
I have said enough to show that there remains much that needs to be scrutinised critically, for example, clause

63 which was raised earlier. We argue again that the provision of a one-year protection for computer software programs is not likely to be enough.

Mr. Boyes: The Minister has given me an assurance that photography will be carefully considered by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), in Committee. I understand that my hon. Friend will not be dealing with the Bill in Committee, but will he mention to our hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who will be leading for the Opposition in Committee, that among the many things that have been mentioned as needing special scrutiny are several important clauses on moral rights, relating to photography? As many hon. Members, who have their photographs taken up and down the country know, photography is an important profession. It is important that we look carefully during the Committee stage at what has been taken away from photographers, as well as what has been given to them. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me that assurance.

Mr. Gould: I am in the happy position of being able to respond to my hon. Friend with the same generosity as was shown by the Minister. I can give him an assurance on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield that, when he takes the Bill through Committee, he will give attention to this important point, along with the others we wish to scrutinise.
In conclusion, we give a general welcome to the Bill. We do not think it is a perfect Bill by any means. Its imperfections are evident. It may be that, despite our best efforts, the imperfections cannot be adequately remedied. However, we shall do what we can to ensure that they are given proper debate and scrutiny. We shall play our part in trying to remedy the defects that we can identify. It will be our intention to ensure that the Bill, despite its existing values and virtues, emerges as a better Bill than it is now. If we can get proper answers to some of these difficult questions and make this a better Bill, we shall have done something for the intellectual life and economic future of this country.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: This is an important Bill on an important subject. It is such an important subject that it is regrettable that there are not more Opposition Members present. I accept that the title, Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, is not likely to cause a street demonstration in the United Kingdom. However, it is no exaggeration to say that income to major companies in this country from licence fees and royalties is important, and will become increasingly important. It may be the difference between the success and failure of a commercial enterprise.
The Copyright Act 1956 is widely recognised as being in need of replacement. It has protected broadcasts since then, but that was before Telstar was launched. It restricted the circumstances in which photocopies could be made, but it predated the launch of the plain paper copier. It covered computer programs, but when it was passed a computer was virtually the size of a house and could perform only simple arithmetical tasks. So the Bill is here


to replace a 32-year-old Act which has done its best, labyrinthine though it may have been, to protect emerging technologies.
I pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Patent Office, who have laboured long and hard on the White Paper, for putting up with me and for preparing the Bill.
My first concern about the Bill is whether it adequately prepares the way forward to cover developing technologies. The speed of change in the past 32 years is as nothing compared with what is happening now. People to whom I have spoken in the computer industry have said that if, for any reason, they had to leave that industry for even only three years they would have to retrain completely. I am worried that the language of the Bill is still the language of the 1956 Act, although lip service may have been paid to new technology.
For example, nowhere in the Bill—I stand to be corrected—can I find a definition of computer software, which I should have thought was an important item to be defined in 1988. I understand that in the information technology industry work is being done on what might be described as the legal implications of information technology. Such work should be broad enough in scope to embrace evolutions in technology. No one expects the Government to go in for futurology to such an extent that they can anticipate what technology may throw up in the next 10 or 15 years, but somehow the Bill must find a way of providing a framework to cope with problems as they develop. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to do that by order.
In recent years there has been a need for private Members' measures, such as the one introduced so successfully by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright). However, I question whether we should rely on private Members' activities, important and successful though they are, given that we are introducing legislation as fundamental as this. If new technology is to be fully protected, several subtle issues must be dealt with, and they do not appear to have been addressed in the Bill.
For example, is a program stored in a computer an idea because it is intangible in form? How should access to software be defined to prevent unauthorised copying and unauthorised use? There is a danger that unless the Bill is significantly amended to deal with the areas I am discussing we shall create a legislative Maginot line, around which future technological developments will flow with ease.
I want to examine one or two of the terms used in the Bill. The term "adaption" is used. Adaption means
Infringement by making adaption or act done in relation to adaption.
That definition is extremely narrow and must be inadequate to cover the adaption of a data base by selection rearrangement or paraphrase. Not enough attention has been given in the appropriate quarters to embracing the concept of what a computer data base is. Throughout the Bill the language is orientated towards literary works—copying and reproducing them—and whether authors will receive their benefits, and so on. Yet we are talking now about technologies that need protecting. Elsewhere in the Bill the term "reprographic copying" is used. Are those terms sufficient definitions to cover down-loading? Probably not.
The word "electronic" is also used. It is almost a sop; in some appropriate corner, the word electronic was thrown down as an inadequately sized blanket to cover any known future device. But electronic must be only part of the story. It does not embrace all types of machine-readable information.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) gave the Bill credit for discussing computer generation, and said that we were the first legislature to examine artificial intelligence. Is the definition of computer generation in the Bill clear enough? Is there a distinction between computer-generated and man-generated? Data bases can be generated by computers, and that is the real problem for the future.
I shall not detain the House with more examples, but I am sure that the Standing Committee will need to examine these matters carefully. Copyright is a broad and simple concept. It is infringed by anyone who appropriates the intellectual creations of another. The Bill has missed the chance to state that basic principle simply, but it should contain powers to add by secondary legislation new forms of infringement. If the Secretary of State had such powers, he would be able to define new forms of infringing acts as advances in technology called for them.
Technological change is not the only impetus towards reform. The 1956 Act got into a rare mess over industrial designs. It is inconceivable that when the House passed that Act any hon. Member thought that he or she was establishing a regime for the protection of exhaust pipes, but, for reasons too complicated and arcane to go into here, functional designs such as exhaust pipes have fallen within copyright and received protection for the lifetime of the designer plus 50 years. That is far too long, and something must replace copyright as the means of protecting functional designs.
The White Paper promised a new form of protection lasting 10 years, with the provision that in the second five years licences should be available as of right. That was a reasonable compromise, although many thought it was a fair-weather umbrella giving protection only during the early part of a product's life, when there is no market for spares. The Bill includes what are known as the "must fit" and "must match" exceptions—the antithesis of the well-known maxim in copyright circles: if it is worth copying, it is worth protecting.
The Government must understand that this means that manufacturers of goods that require spare parts—not only motor cars but many other mechanical products, including domestic appliances—will have to load all their development costs on to the products themselves, allowing for the reimbursement that they would have received for spare parts. Spares will have to be priced on a cost-plus basis to compete. The consumer may be able to get parts for his car more cheaply, but the car will cost him more to begin with. According to a recent CBI study, if the Bill is enacted along those lines, protection in the United Kingdom will be substantially less than that available to our competitors abroad in their domestic markets.

Mr. Tim Janman: I agree with my right hon. Friend's observations. Does he also accept, on the question of copying spare parts such as body panels, that the copiers will tend to concentrate on those parts for which there is a high demand and that the price of those body panels on more outdated models, which tend to be vehicles used by people on lower incomes, will increase


because only the original equipment manufacturer will still have any interest in making them available in the market place?

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it is not the matters that are in the Bill which most concern me, but those that are not in the Bill.
The White Paper promised that the Patent Office would be hived off and removed from the constraints of the Civil Service within which it plays a role not unlike that played perhaps by Siberia within the Soviet Union. The Government have now concluded that it is not a paying proposition, because so much of its work is now diverted under the European patent convention to Munich instead it will be sent to Newport.
It would be much more to the point to hive off the Trade Marks Registry which at present forms part of the Patent Office. The two are in no way interdependent. The Trade Marks Registry makes a healthy profit from renewal fees. The registry could be left in London and the most could be made of whatever slim chance remains of having the Community Trade Marks Office in this country. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) who has slogged long, hard and admirably on the matter and I hope that his efforts are rewarded with success.
On the question of the levy, one is inevitably drawn back to consider the White Paper of April 1986. Paragraph 6.1 states:
When the present Copyright Act was enacted in 1956 relatively few people had the facility to make recordings in their homes. Since then technology has advanced rapidly and inexpensive recording equipment is now readily available. Today most homes have at least one piece of audio recording equipment, typically a cassette recorder facility forming part of a hi-fi or music centre. Video recorder ownership is also widespread.
In paragraph 6.3, the White Paper goes on:
The copyright interests have long expressed concern that their rights are unenforceable in practice. Attempts to prevent home taping by spoiler systems have not proved feasible. Nor have the copyright owners been able to obtain what they consider to be appropriate levels of remuneration in respect of home taping through voluntary licensing schemes because consumers did not take these up in sufficient numbers. It is argued that the only way copyright owners can be remunerated is by introducing a levy on recording equipment … and/or on blank recording tape.
Paragraph 6.4 goes on:
The 1985 Green Paper discussed the issues involved. It commented that while home recorders had become commonplace, the benefits of the new technology had accrued solely to the general public and tape and recorder manufacturers, and that home taping was a major use of copyright material for which copyright owners received no payment. It went on to invite comments on the proposal that there should be a statutory requirement for the payment of a levy on the sale of blank tape, and perhaps also on recording equipment. Comments were invited both on the principle of a levy and on details of a suggested scheme for administering it.
The first Green Paper was produced and, after consultation, the Government made their decision, which is set out in paragraph 6.6 of the White Paper:
After giving full and careful consideration to all the opinions expressed in response to the 1985 Green Paper, the Government has concluded that:

(a) copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material and

performances by those who tape them at home to the prejudice of the legitimate interests of copyright owners;
(b) there is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tape as a means of providing such remuneration; and
(c) any levy scheme should give the public an entitlement to record for private purposes.
In reaching these conclusions and in determining what legislative provisions should be introduced, the Government has had particular regard to the need to put the law on a sensible and—as far as possible—enforceable basis, as well as the need to balance the interests of copyright owners and performers with those of the public at large. While it has no wish to deny consumers the convenience of modern recording technology, the Government considers that copyright owners and performers—and not merely the manufacturers and importers of blank tape and recording equipment—should obtain some economic benefit from home-taping. It should be noted that a number of other governments have reached the same conclusion. Thus, legislative provision for a levy on blank tape has already been introduced in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The introduction of a levy is also under active consideration in a number of other countries.
Paragraph 6.7 continues:
The Government does not accept the suggestion that private copying should be legalised without any provision for a levy. It is likely that this would be incompatible with the United Kingdom's current obligations under the Brussels text of the Berne Convention and with the Paris text of that Convention which the Government intends to ratify. The fact that rights cannot be enforced at present is not a justification for their removal; rather it is an argument that the law should be amended to ensure that the owners of rights are able to derive benefit from them.
Paragraph 6.9 states:
It has been argued that whilst a levy might have been justified a few years ago when the record industry was in difficulties, the industry is now profitable and does not need further subsidy. However, the levy will be neither a subsidy nor compensation for lost sales or reduced profitability: it will be a payment of the right to use property—namely the right to make recordings of copyright material for private purposes—and will thus be totally independent of the profitability of the record industry (or indeed the financial standing of composers, lyricists and performers).
One could ask what external legal event, what judgment by the House of Lords and what further additions to the Berne convention have happened since April 1986. The answer is none. There has been the arrival of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is not legally qualified.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, he is.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I meant that he is not legally qualified in a practising sense. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not only highly qualfied, but is learned in the best sense of that term.
When I was a law student at Cambridge, I used to read those journals in which people would say, "Go away and consult the authorities on this matter." They did not mean the local authorities, but, in contract, Cheshire and Fifoot and, in real property, Megarry. My right hon. and learned Friend does not claim to be an authority on that subject, but he has formed a judgment about the rough justice and believes that it falls on the other side of the line to that which the Government upheld in April 1986. I do not agree with that. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that he would not press the House to a Division and, with the absence of his hon. Friends, I can well understand that. However, if he had done so, I would have been unable to


support the Government's proposal on the levy, although I like many aspects of the Bill. This is an important principle and one must recognise that differences of opinion exist.
I have enumerated the countries that have already taken the view that a levy is a sensible way forward. We await—goodness knows when—a Green Paper from the European Commission. We appear to have been waiting for it for rather a long time and, when it arrives, we suspect that it may well recommend a levy. With the Department of Trade and Industry's harmonisation campaign for 1992, one must have the uncomfortable feeling that, at some stage, there will be a need for the Government, whether in 1992 or 1993, to come back to the House and put the matter right.
In the past 10 days there have been some changes in the Government's position. They have been known to amend their view. Such changes used to be called U-turns, but that is a rather unfashionable term now. However, as a result of its complexity this subject has understandably become something of a U-turn charter. Differences have occurred between the Green Paper, the White Paper and the Bill. On the fair dealing provisions, the Secretary of State has taken one view, changed his mind and then considered changing it back again. I am not criticising him, because these are difficult issues.
As the hon. Member for Dagenham said earlier, we are likely to see various changes not only to some of the parts that have been specified today, but of the sort that I hope will make this legislation as good as it needs to be because of the reliance of British industry, commerce and business on the protection of our intellectual property.

6 pm

Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) said that he would probably not support the Government on the levy on blank tapes, so he might be considered to be a dangerous Member to put on the Standing Committee. However, it would be disappointing if he were not appointed, because he obviously has considerable knowledge of this complex subject and this detailed and complex Bill.
I give the Bill a general welcome. Its updating of our copyright law is generally welcome on both sides of the House. It is clear that, although the Bill as a whole will not be contentious, some parts of it will generate some contention and discussion. Hon. Members who have spoken so far have already identified the areas which will give rise to debate.
The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton referred to the difficulty of coping with what is inevitably a continually changing scene. We must make laws today for events and developments in the year 2000 that we cannot imagine now. The very nature of intellectual property means that today's legislation will have to be continually updated. We are dealing with a continually developing market, with new technologies and new ideas emerging all the time.
I want to deal with various items in three categories—those which we welcome, those on which the Government have probably not gone far enough or on which the position is somewhat unclear, and the levy on blank tapes, on which the Bill is unacceptably silent.
In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the strengthened measures against counterfeiting. The provision for the continuation of the "Peter Pan" royalties to the Great Ormond street hospital will be welcome throughout the House. They are no substitute for adequate funding for the National Health Service, but they form an important part of that hospital's income and their continuation is welcome.
Contrary to some previous speakers, I generally welcome the steps that the Government have taken on the so-called "spare parts" provisions. I hope that the Government will stand firm on the inclusion of exemptions to the proposed unregistered design rights—the so-called "must fit" and "must match" exemptions, despite the considerable argument and pressure which there will no doubt be.
A considerable number of jobs are at stake among car body panel manufacturers. My impression from what the Minister said was that designs that were subject to exemption were such that they did not involve much in the way of inventive mind or imagination. Therefore, I do not accept the CBI's argument in its circular that no protection could mean no new products. We are not dealing with areas where there is considerable imagination and inventiveness. The competition that could be engendered through such exemptions could lead to benefits to the consumer and to the safeguarding of many thousands of jobs in the motor spare parts industry.
Let me deal now with areas where the Bill is not entirely satisfactory. The inadequate protection for computer software programs in clause 63 and the single year of protection given to record rentals have already been referred to. Record rentals have not yet caught on in a big way in Britain, but I understand that in countries such as Japan that is a big industry, particularly since the arrival of compact discs. The amount of record rental arid recording there is substantial.
As the Minister said, how long music is marketable is a matter of judgment, but there is a general feeling in the record industry that one year is not long enough. It does not give adequate protection to people who have invested their creative skills and talents in producing music and I hope that, as the Bill progresses through the House, some longer period of protection will be given.
Clause 36 and the special provisions for the photocopying of material for local education authorities is another area that I should like to see amended. As I understand the present position, there is a voluntary agreement between the local education authorities and the copyright owners—the co-called copyright licensing agency licence—where it has been accepted that education establishments may copy up to 5 per cent. of a book per annum. Under clause 36, that would be reduced to 4 per cent. per annum, in quarterly batches of 1 per cent. The dates are not always helpful to local education authorities since at least one quarter will largely cover the school summer holiday. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would like a compromise on that. Five per cent. would be preferable, but if there are considerations in the Berne convention which limit it to 4 per cent., it might be easier and more helpful to local education authorities and schools if that could be done in two half-yearly batches of 2 per cent. That would overcome the problem where at least one of the quarters would largely fall during a holiday.
I have received representations from constituents on the Bill as it affects broadcasting, following some discussions in the newspapers on the extent to which interviewees have a copyright. People in broadcasting to whom I spoke earlier today feel that the position has not yet been satisfactorily clarified. Obvious areas of concern are where a reporter goes into the street with a microphone and takes off-the-cuff remarks from people and programmes such as those of Roger Cook involving consumer investigations where interviews are often of a hostile nature with someone trying to protect practices in which they have been engaged and which may not always meet with public approval.
There is still some doubt whether such interviews can be repeated after an initial live broadcast or whether the person who gave the interview has a copyright of the recording which, if he exercised that right, would prevent any further broadcast of the interview.
We would all regret seeing any unnecessary restraint on journalism, and the view in the industry is that the present position is not satisfactory. It has been suggested that there can be an implied consent by the interviewee. That will not be clear in a case when someone has said something which he would rather not have said and if an albeit honest statement might put that person in a bad light. Implied consent or implied licence is always revocable.
The other argument was that an interview was not a work qualifying for protection under the Bill. There is a great deal of judicial authority which suggests that one does not have to do very much for one's words and utterances to become a work and subject to protection. If further clarification on that point can be given, so much the better.
Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has referred to the absence of any provision for a levy on blank tapes. That is a serious omission. The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton has alredy referred, in his quotations from the White Paper, to the Government's complete about—turn from their position two years ago. Although I was not an avid reader of the Conservative campaign guide at the last general election, I believe that it contained a commitment to a levy on blank tapes.
Earl Ferrers made a very persuasive contribution in another place when he moved an amendment in respect of a levy on blank tapes. Indeed, I suspect that he was so persuasive that he was brought into the Government team to prevent him from having another opportunity to persuade their Lordships about the merits of his argument.
I listened to the Minister's arguments about why the levy should not be introduced. We would all accept that the argument is finely balanced and we can all readily see the pros and cons. The Minister said that Parliament has given rights to singers, musicians and composers and they should not have to come to us for help if their rights are not readily enforced. We cannot accept that argument just like that. If the rights that Parliament has granted to people cannot be enforced and are not effective, it behoves us to reconsider the matter to discover whether there is anything else that we can do to ensure that their rights are protected.
The Minister said that this is a pretty rough and ready measure. We should also consider the public lending right. Considering the number of libraries in the country, very

few are chosen as the sample on which to base the remuneration payments to authors. That system is pretty rough and ready. However, it has been accepted that people whose skills and talents lie in creative and artistic works, be that the written word, spoken word or song, should be entitled to some return for their creativity.
It was suggested in another place that the public lending right system would raise about £7 million. Although that may be a small amount of money when we consider the vast amounts raised in taxation each year, if that money were distributed among musicians, singers and composers it would be very beneficial. Many of those people do not have large incomes. If they are to be allowed time to express ther creative talents, that extra money—albeit relatively small in terms of the total taxation take—might allow them to further their careers and talents in a way which would not otherwise be possible.
I am sure that amendments providing for a levy will be introduced in Committee and we will certainly support them. We accept that there will be problems for blind and deaf people. It is not beyond the wit of the House to find appropriate arrangments to allow for the imposition of a levy and its collection without too much bureaucracy and, at the same time, take account of those people with a special case for exemption.
I hope that a constructive approach will be taken to the Bill. I am certain that Opposition Members will table constructive amendments. I hope that the Government will listen and be prepared to concede where they believe that a reasoned and well-argued case has been made. As has already been said, intellectual property and its protection are important for stimulating creativity and enterprise. The provisions in the Bill assist that. The Bill is also of considerable economic importance for us, not least as we approach 1992 and the single European market. Subject to reservations that will no doubt be debated, we welcome the Bill.

Mr. Iain Mills: I want to describe the background to my interest in this subject. I spent 18 years in manufacturing industry, originally as a tyre designer. I am the co-holder of a number of patents. I was also a marketing manager interested in trade marks, branding and naming. I am a non-executive director of Interbrand Group plc. I give advice to Grant, Spencer Caisley and Porteus and to the Industrial Anti-Counterfeiting Group. I am vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and chairman of the Community Trade Marks Office committee. I apologise for recounting that list, but it shows that I take a strong interest in intellectual property.
I want to thank everyone who has supported me over the past few years in our campaign to increase the interest in intellectual property. I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend in another place, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry and his colleagues on including in the Bill many of the things for which we have been campaigning with regard to intellectual property matters for almost a decade. I congratulate everyone on bringing that about. No doubt such action was taken with 1992 in mind and induced by the Government's clear recognition of the importance of intellectual property.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in another place:
Intellectual property is of substantial economic significance. It forms the foundations of major industries …A recent study concluded that 2·6 per cent. of GDP is generated by copyright based industries."—
that is just copyright.
If one were to take into account industries which rely heavily on patents and designs"—
and I would add trade marks—
the figure would obviously be higher still."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1476.]
As was stated earlier, intellectual property is clearly an area of enormous significance. However, until recently, it was not recognised by the nation, or the House, as having that degree of significance.
It will he difficult to achieve in the Bill all the balances to encourage this great creator of wealth for our industries. We should remind ourselves of the enormous importance of our brand names, trade marks and inventions. They are seen by people throughout Europe and further afield—and particularly in the newly developing countries—as highly attractive and extremely valuable. If there are any short cuts available to those countries to overcome the high cost and staffing difficulties of industrial research and creating brand names, images and market penetrations, the protection of intellectual property—the protection of our copyrights, design rights, patents and trade marks—will prove in the competitive years to 1992 and beyond to be an absolutely vital part of our industrial economic strategy.
We must get the balance of protection right in the Bill to protect United Kingdom interests, to allow us access to our partners in Europe into the single market in 1992. Innovation, the protection of our clever, new designs and existing designs, will be all-important.
As well as my interest in intellectual property, I have a constituency interest in the midlands and I share a constituency border with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Consumer Affairs. I accept that there is a difficult but important balance to achieve with regard to unregistered design rights between the original equipment manufacturer who has to put huge sums of money into developing products—even those that are functional—and the spare parts manufacturers. Many of us have both original equipment manufacturers and spare parts manufacturers in our constituencies.
The matter is not simple and it cannot be left on the shelf. The judgment in the other place in the case of British Leyland v. Armstrong shows that some decisions must be made. I asked those who advised me to give me some idea of how design is looked on elsewhere and I understand that copyright protection of purely functional designs is much rarer in other countries. It may be obtained for 25 years in Japan and for 16 years in New Zealand. Many of the old Commonwealth countries which have previously granted life plus 50-year protection for purely functional objects are changing their copyright laws as we have had to do so, in the light of the key decision in British Leyland v. Armstrong. In France, a registrable design can be protected by copyright.
Quite how we achieve the right decisions on this balance, I am not sure. We have to look not only at our own situation but at the fact that the European Economic Community is seen as the leader in intellectual property matters. Therefore, whatever we do in the Bill will no doubt result in repercussions, and perhaps people

following our example. The European Commission must be looking carefully at what we are doing. In achieving a balance we have not only our own legislation to bear in mind but our commitment to 1992 and our example to countries in Europe, and throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, it will be a most difficult matter.
I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter of whether "must match" and "must fit" will be fair to both sides of the equation, and I wish to press him further on it. I understand that the decision was made in the light of increasing competition. I have received figures from Ford showing that body panels and wings of cars are largely imported. The figure is about 80 or 90 per cent. If we reduce the amount of protection, do we not increase the amount of import penetration and, in the name of competition, encourage those people from abroad?
This may all be part of 1992 and the single market, but we need to look carefully at it, and I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on how we can see the "must match," and "must fit" proposals creating more incentives for UK manufacturers to compete with European manufacturers, so that body panels are produced here. I have some sympathy with the motor industry's argument that its members would like to see this idea dropped, but I also have sympathy with the desire for further competition. While there is a case to be made for this, although that is not accepted by the car industry—the original equipment manufacturers—it may be seen as a blunt instrument in the way in which it applies, for example, to computer hardware. It worries me that, if the normal three parts of any word processor can fit, presumably there would be no unregistered design right for a part of a word processor or whatever part of the three bits that usually go together, for people such as IBM and other computer manufacturers. If I have misunderstood this, I would be grateful to he reassured, but if those parts fit or match, unless they are a registered design, there will be no protection. If the argument is that the manufacturer of such products should register all his designs, I can understand that, but to register every part of a motor car would be an enormously lengthy and time-consuming process, and while it might be possible for large manufacturers, what about small manufacturers?
I am not rejecting "must match" and "must fit," but I am exploring—perhaps it would be better done in Committee, in view of the need for brevity—whether there are any other ways out of this problem. For example, there is the change of the licence of rights to a compulsory licence. I understand that the European Commission is looking carefully at the possibility of compulsory licences, which would need the establishment of a tribunal system. This involves another part of the Bill and an extension of its powers to compulsory licences. If a manufacturer who wished to enter the market could not get a licence under this compulsory licence procedure, he could, if the manufacturer of the original products complained, go to the tribunal for judgment.
I understand and appreciate the importance of avoiding monopolies, but there is a likelihood, if we do not tackle the European dimension, that this matter will be referred to the European Court, and I would appreciate my hon. Friend's comments.
I am also concerned about the functional designs and the enjoyment of copyright for the designer's life plus 50 years. As time is now fleeing. I will press my hon. Friend


the Minister on this matter in Committee. There is some concern about the judgment of aesthetic designs and how eye appeal, not artistic merit, would effectively be the criterion, and the 15-year provision. I have been pressed about the design right of five years complete and a further five years under licence, leading to 10 years' protection for registered designs, and the suggestion that this should be extended to 10, 15 or 20 years, again with the possibility of a compulsory licence. These are important matters.
I understand the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Minister as, among the many briefs I am clutching, I note that the Confederation of British Industry is strong in its resolution to the matter, that the British Automotive Parts Promotion Council takes rather a different view and that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders does not seem to have found common ground among its members, and is unable to advise them. I fully appreciate the difficulties of Ministers and Back Benchers in coming to hard conclusions as to the best solution. A balance, which has been mentioned today, is obviously important.
There are a number of other aspects. I am concerned—I know that this matter was taken up in the other place—about Crown powers. The Crown has been given new and extensive rights, and the defence industry is most concerned about this matter. I wonder whether these new sweeping powers are necessary and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to an amendment on this. The five-year licence provision sufficiently protects the Crown and I am not sure about the urgent need provision suggested by Lord Beaverbrook. I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on this matter, but perhaps it would be better to take this up in more detail in Committee.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's comments about the number of proposals in the Bill which affect trade mark agents, and I welcome the inclusion of privilege in the matter of trade mark agents dealing with clients. This is an important matter for them. They will also be subject, as I understand from the Bill, to becoming registered on a registry of trade mark agents. This is obviously a great advance, which I welcome. Although it may not be possible for him to comment tonight, I press my hon. Friend on how this registry would be formed. I understand from correspondence that this may not be possible now, and that it could be introduced subsequently. I have talked to a wide range of eminent trade mark agents and they are concerned that their profession achieves the highest quality of education, performance and standards. I am concerned that the way in which the registry operates allows this to happen.
I congratulate the Institute of Trade Mark Agents on its new proposals for education and qualifications, but wonder whether it would not be appropriate to have an intermediate body which may set down the basic criteria for the way in which the registry operates, such as the senatorial version of its standing advisory committee. I know that it is planning to broaden that, but I wonder whether some intermediate body might be suitable. While I am in favour of self-regulation, there are occasions when the rules should, perhaps, be set by another body. By and large, I wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of a

registry for trade mark agents and all agents also welcome that, provided we can achieve the best and highest degree of qualification.
I should now like to turn to some technical points. I understand that the appropriate section extends privilege to a registered patent agent in respect of
any matter relating to patents, trade marks, service marks, registered designs or design right, or with respect to any question of copyright connected with any such matters;
It does not appears to cover the question of passing off confidentiality. It may well be that the matter was covered in another place, but I should appreciate the Minister's comments, though not necessarily tonight. The corresponding provision for registered trade mark agents in the appropriate section appears to cover
any matter relating to trade marks or service marks".
It makes no mention of copyright design passing off in the same way. Part VII, which deals with the fraudulent application or use of a registered trade mark, makes no reference to service marks. If I am incorrect about that or if it has been corrected in another place, perhaps the Minister will tell the House now or at a later stage.
The appointment of county courts or patent county courts in the appropriate section which refers to related patents and designs or other intellectually related matters presumably includes trade marks and service marks. The other section provides for the inclusion of registered patent agents who may address a patent county court. Will registered trade mark agents have those same powers? I would appreciate the Minister's advice on that matter.
I have been in correspondence with the Minister about character merchandising and, as always, I appreciated his forthright and frank comments. The Standing Advisory Committee is taking a long-range view of trade mark matters. I would welcome the Minister's advice because character merchandising may well be taken up later in another Bill. I am especially concerned about the problems of trafficking, but perhaps the Bill is not the appropriate measure to deal with that. We must get this matter right, and many suggestions have been made about it. Unless we can deal adequately with trafficking there may be even more problems.
I was interested recently to be briefed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers when I found that this extraordinary and exciting Bill presents problems for it, too. I originally trained as a chemical engineer and have some sympathy for electrical engineers. The institution showed me its database and abstracts from it. I understand that under the original terms of the Bill that will be illegal. The institution was helpful in its briefing and the Government may well be sympathetic to an amendment that will help the institution to give to the scientific community quite remarkable access to abstracts from learned articles. I cannot remember how many learned articles are covered, but they are of enormous value and are used by the European Parliament, by hon. Members and by the scientific community.
The institute is anxious about the matter, and I have assured it that there will be many amendments coming from the other place and that the Minister's officials are working extremely hard. Any advice on timing would be helpful, and perhaps the Minister would be prepared to see members of the institution. I do not act on its behalf, but as an engineer I find its concern quite important.
I am a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and I am concerned about


enforcement by trading standards officers. They are quite justified in bringing to me the problem that they are finding in using the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 against persons dealing in illicit audio recordings or foreign video recordings. This is often because of the clever marketing techniques used by people who deal in those things.
Trading standards officers have found that their efforts to use the Act are frequently thwarted because the illicit packer, in copying the packaging of the legitimate article, omits all mention of the genuine producer and sometimes even substitutes the name and logo of an entirely fictitious company. Similar problems exist with Asian language video recordings and computer software. I should be grateful for the Minister's advice about what to do to strengthen the enforcement powers of trading standards officers.
I have long campaigned against industrial counterfeiting and I enormously appreciate the inclusion in the Bill of the clause that makes counterfeiting a criminal offence. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues because it is right that this pernicious practice should be made a criminal offence. The clause will be widely welcomed, not just by hon. Members, but by British industry because it is likely to provide a significant and obvious deterrent to this kind of crime. Arguments that the Trade Marks Act 1938 provides criminal penalties have been belied by the fact that on average the courts have imposed penalties of about £200 per crime. To a counterfeiter making many hundreds of thousands of pounds from counterfeiting our famous British brand names and products, that is derisory and not a deterrent.
I congratulate the Government and give notice that while fully supporting the Bill I feel that on some points we can improve even further their excellent efforts. If I am lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee and to catch the Chairman's eye, I shall suggest amendments that will confer on the police power to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, and shall seek to amend the provision about the forfeiture of counterfeit goods or material so that it no longer depends on a person being convicted. I shall suggest amendments to change the offence of possession in order to make it unnecessary to prove that the possessor himself intended to commit a further offence. I shall try to insert a power that will enable enforcement authorities to share information, first with each other and secondly with industry. That is most important. I shall also try to strengthen Customs procedures about the importation of counterfeit goods.
I seem to be congratulating the Government quite often and I do so again on the European measure about which they are taking a lead on the control of counterfeit goods coming into Britain. I look forward to discussing in more detail with the Minister in Committee the reasons behind my proposed amendments to the excellent clause about counterfeiting.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I have not had an opportunity to study the Bill as carefully as my hon. Friend. Does the counterfeiting power extend to intellectual property as well as to physical property?

Mr. Mills: I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that, as I understand it, it would. If it is a deliberate counterfeit and not a design right it would come under that clause.
I could be tempted to continue for hours about the Community Trade Marks Office but I know that I should not be called again. I had the honour to chair the Committee which dealt with this and I can tell the House that the matter is still very much in the air. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) on his redoubtable and splendid support when he was Minister of State for the campaign to site the proposed Community Trade Marks Office in London. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on their efforts. We have all campaigned, but we are up against tough opposition from The Hague, Munich and now Madrid. It is only right that Britain, which does not have a visible and tangible demonstration of its commitment to the European Community, should have this important institution. We have Culham, which is not an institution but a research project. Despite being the second biggest contributor to the European Community, we do not have evidence of our strong commitment to Europe, not just in the past but in 1992.
The time has come for Europe to recognise the justice of our case and to give us that important institution, which will directly lead to at least 200 jobs, and may indirectly lead to 10 or 20 times that number. With the help of the developers, Taylor Woodrow, Her Majesty's Government are building that office. It is in St. Katharine's dock, near the Tower of London. My colleagues should look at it. That is how tangible the commitment is. The Government have offered substantial support. I press them to declare how substantial it is and to increase the substance, if that is needed. The Government must understand that they may have to play this as the European bargaining takes place. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the Government's intellectual backing and commitment are followed up by funds and arguments to ensure that justice is done and Britain has that European institution.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Had the debate been televised, it would have been a switch-off. However, the debate is more interesting for the long-term prospects of the country than are some of the packed, highly controversial debates on what I sometimes think are non-issues. Therefore, it is pleasant and refreshing to stand here this evening, in the peace and quiet of the Chamber—it was peaceful until the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) arrived—and debate some matters of interest to the nation and do less politicking.
I warn hon. Members who have the misfortune to sit on the Committee that examines the Bill. I was a member of the Committee that examined the last patents Bill, the Patents, Designs and Marks Bill, that came from the House of Lords. Hon. Members will find it a dreadful, complex experience. Often, after sitting from 10.30 in the morning to 1 o'clock in the afternoon, they will come out of the Committee Room with sore heads. The last patent Bill was recognised as a stop-gap measure. I well remember having a conversation with a noble Lord who has gained fame in the legal profession for his knowledge of the Patent Acts. He said, "You may be an engineer, Mr. Member for Wallsend, but you know nothing about complexity and technology until you get into patent legislation."
We are now in a more difficult situation. We have extended way beyond patents into other aspects of design, technology and science. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. Surprisingly, for a debate of this calibre, there are some hon. Members with a good knowledge of science, technology, and chemical engineering who can add something in Committee. Hon. Members on the Committee will also learn something about their fellow hon. Members. I have never seen such unity between spokesmen on both sides of the House.
I was impressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whose intellect I admire; it is far superior to mine. But I like classical music and he likes pop music. He mentioned that one in four pop music compositions is exported from this country. I thought of all the misery that had been inflicted upon so many people and of the long-term damage to their ears. That is well worth remembering.
I have always held the view that the design ability, inventiveness and ingenuity of the people of this country have never been fully rewarded. The man who invented "cats' eyes"—some hon. Members are too young to remember; it was in the 1930s—received adequate reward. I have often considered that Frank Whittle, who designed the jet engine, never received his full reward. Many of us may cite examples of men and women who, applying their minds and logic, have come up with some brilliant thoughts. For example, I refer to marine engineering. Some of our designers in the north-east helped to design the bulbous nose on many ships in use today. That design was stolen from us by the Japanese, and we never received our full reward.
People have improved the quality of many of our textiles. Hon. Members will have seen textiles that have been churned out in the far east, inscribed, "Finest English worsted. Made in Huddersfield." Again, our designs and colours have been stolen. We have British watches of standing and substance. They are much more expensive than I can afford. Cheap imitations are flooding in from many areas. Fake designs audaciously bear quality trade marks.
We must get around to protecting not merely designs and names but the rewards for the people who have singlemindedly put so much of their lives into such designs. Without them, British industry, technology and inventiveness will not progress. These days, we hear a lot about the decline in British industry. British industry is beginning to surge forward. New people are going into British industry. We must encourage them, but we must also encourage those who put in the effort to get the just reward. It is a sad reflection on our society that so many people who have put in the effort have not been rewarded. The reason is that they have not had sufficient money to take a case through the courts.
A long time ago, before I became an hon. Member, I was lucky enough to work for enlightened employers. Some of my contemporaries were design-conscious and inventive. They got assistance from their employers to register patents. That is an expensive procedure. It becomes more expensive when some principles of a patent are deliberately stolen. It is at that stage that the legal profession comes into the matter.
The Minister said that he would like the Patent Office to be kept in London. I for one would not. I should like the Patent Office to be where our design and industrial bases are. I would plump for the north-east, but I suspect that the Patent Office will remain in London. That is where patent lawyers live and congregate. That is where, with high moral standards, they argue with each other in the courts. Often they argue that costs are astronomical. Those hon. Members who will be on the Committee should also look at that aspect of the legislation.
The Government produced a Green Paper and a White Paper, but such documents are produced for discussion. All Governments have the right to decide what their analysis is, what should be rejected from a Green Paper and what should be added to the Bill, and the Government have done that.
I support them on the question of blank tape because of the sheer bureaucracy that would be involved in getting the ultimate levy. It will be bad enough collecting the poll tax without trying to get money on blank tape.
Those are my random thoughts. I hope that in Committee we shall have some really serious debates. We will have to sharpen our minds to get this legislation through with every loophole closed. I am old enough to know that we shall not close all the loopholes, but when the Bill comes out of Committee we shall certainly have improved the lot of the people who will ultimately benefit from it.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I wish to echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) that it is certainly a pleasure to take part in a debate that is less ritualistic than most and deals with the issues before us in the Bill. He referred in his speech to lawyers, and this Bill has been described as a lawyers' paradise. It is with some hesitation that I declare my interest as a partner in a law firm that has quite a number of clients who are involved in publishing authors' creative work and dealing with intellectual property. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will have some sympathy with the suspicion that one has an intense sense of anticipation that this Bill may reach the statute book in as complicated and convoluted form as possible, and the even worse suspicion that the sole purpose of my speech is to complicate it still further.
Those interested in this area of the law have been greatly reassured by the very name of the Bill and the way in which it has been introduced, although there are, of course, concerns, and I will touch on those in a moment. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) implicitly indicated the degree of courage that is required to bring forward a Bill of this kind, bearing in mind the tremendously conflicting interests. It is a great credit to the Government that they have introduced it.
The Bill started its life in another place as a relatively straightforward and clearly drafted piece of legislation, but has already, as indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, become something of a monster. In my view, it still has some way to go towards achieving its objectives of improving the lot of those responsible for creating the works of the mind on which our society depends while ensuring that there is access to those works


on fair terms. I hope that during the Bill's passage through the House we may be able to do something to restore the balance which in some areas seems to have been lost.
I shall direct my remarks predominantly to the copyright elements of the Bill. We have had excellent speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir. G. Pattie) on the design aspects.
The Government have told us, and history shows, that there is a major new copyright Bill only once in a generation, so the Bill is important if only for that reason. But it has a much greater importance. Copyright is the trading system for works of the mind, for the information and creative products which play so vital a part in our society and our economy today. In terms of demand, four years ago a Cabinet Office paper estimated the value of those industries at some £15 billion a year. The hon. Member for Dagenham quoted a figure of £20 billion, which is something over one twentieth of our total economy. Those industries include, in addition to the traditional writing, publishing and printing industries, broadcasting in all its new forms, the film, video and audio industries, computer services and those involved in the distribution of information products.
These industries are large, significant and influential for the shape and growth of our society. They represent an area of trade in which the United Kingdom, with the benefits of the English language, has a particular role to play. They enjoy exceptional growth possibilities, and various speakers have referred to that. As a country, our writing, research, publishing, television, films and software are of unrivalled quality. We stand on the threshold of an information explosion generated by the information technology revolution. This offers this country unusal opportunities, which the industries are now seizing. What is more, as has been said by various hon. Members, the copyright model that we set in this Bill is very likely to be followed by countless other countries which have taken their lead from us already in such matters as well as in other areas of legislation.
The Bill, on its publication in the other place, appeared to recognise that an effective trading system for information products and services is clearly essential. In the United Kingdom we secured this long ago by establishing a property right, a right to sell or license. The existence of this right works in the interests of the public by encouraging authors and other creators to put their works on the market by giving them the prospect of fair earnings. But, because the property is incorporeal, unlike land or chattels, it is particularly difficult to enforce. That problem was touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend in his opening speech. At any time it has been easy to make pirate copies of books, films, records and software. As a consequence, the Copyright Acts have imposed both civil remedies and criminal penalties to discourage such behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton pointed out how new information technology has greatly increased that risk, not just from commercial fly-by-nighters but by all sorts of respectable people: by the ordinary citizen with a cassette recorder, by industrial companies—which, one has to say, at the same time will go to the ends of the earth to protect their own intellectual property—by libraries, by professional people by Governments and by local government.
These new technologies, of course, help provide access to information. They enable users of information to make

a copy—perhaps many copies—cheaply and easily of just the piece of information they need. This confers major benefits on consumers, the benefits of cheapness and selection. Since, normally, they own the master copy, they are, they think, doing only what is within their rights. But for the copyright owner these acts are legion. The copy seems to amount to little, but the sum of the copies is enormous and for many types of work this prevents the owner from getting the fair return to which he or she is entitled. It discourages investment of his or her time and skill in the creation of further work and it discourages investment in those works by publishers. In volume, it destroys the viability of industries dependent upon the copyright.
It was this phenomenon that the Whitford departmental inquiry was set up to investigate and advise on. ft produced a widely accepted report to the effect that copyright owners would have to accept new and perhaps less satisfactory systems for controlling and producing returns from these new uses. It also advocated that users should accept that, while such systems should as far as possible be voluntary, they should be backed by statutory enforcement.
Those recommendations were accepted by the Government in a series of Green Papers and White Papers, and appeared for the most part in the original text of this Bill. But in the course of proceedings in another place many of them and many of the positive supports for the copyright owners have been dropped. I will not repeat the elements touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton in that regard. He referred to the need to secure reward for composers and manufacturers of music records so frequently copied in the home, and to his stance on the levy on blank tape. I could not contemplate going that far, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that I still feel some pricks of conscience that we have yet to cover this point and should be happy to contribute to any attempt that he might make to cover it.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend recognise the great danger that, if we set up such a bureaucracy to distribute money from a comparatively modest levy on blank tapes, much would go on administration and little to those who composed or performed the works? Would that not have a similarity to the performing rights system, where a high proportion of the money paid to the Performing Right Society does not go to the composer or artist, but is spent on administration?

Mr. Neale: There is undoubtedly a danger in any system of this type. I agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham that if one is to criticise the Government on their stance it is only right and proper to come forward with a clear alternative, which I am unable to do. I am left with a feeling of conscience, which I think my hon. Friend the Minister, as a composer, would share and I wish him well in that interest. I am sure he will accept that it is clearly unfair on people who spend considerable time arid effort producing creative works to see them copied freely, without any attempt to contain that.
There is a fundamental need to secure a reward for writers and publishers for the books and periodicals which are so freely copied by libraries and, similarly, those copied by commercial companies and research institutions


through the block licensing systems. Yet that has been truncated in the Bill, so that if it were enacted it would amount to an unfair freedom for important sections of the market to make copies to meet their needs. For valuable and scientific publications the result would be devastating, given the expense of production and the small circulation. Under clause 29 academic institutions, libraries and commercial research organisations will be able to obtain copies of articles, journals and even parts of books. They are all worthy institutions but, as Whitford said, there is no reason for permitting the confiscation of originators' property, especially since relatively simple licensing systems are available to provide the required access.
My right hon. and learned Friend reiterated his belief that people should be rewarded when they create a work and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden referred to the comments of Lord Beaverbrook and the Secretary of State in another place. It was the CBI and library bodies that objected to the administration involved. If comparatively little is going on, the amount of administration should be small. If the administration costs are heavy, it shows, as does research, that there is an enormous amount of infringement of originators' rights. We need to consider that carefully.
The legal presumptions are designed to ease and reduce the cost of the copyright plaintiff's burden of proof in enforcement actions. It is worrying that the Government dropped those without adequate replacement, and I hope that that will be considered. As a result this Bill carries the danger of becoming an infringers' charter. New technologies present, not so much an opportunity for the copyright owner, but a major threat, destroying the viability of an original publishing operation, particularly of the valuable specialised works which are most likely to be accessed by these means. Book publishers, for example, greatly hit by these changes in policy, have given the Government a shortlist of priorities which include better protection of computer software. The Bill improves on that, but there are certain disturbing drafting loopholes. They include support for the block licensing of photocopying by institutions and companies—that is truncated in the Bill as it stands; support in the fight against international piracy of books and other copyright products; and the special circumstances of British publishing in the European market, which is by no means a common publishing market because of the different marketing considerations that inevitably apply.
In that connection, in 1981 the book publishing industry asked the Government for help with serious problems which the single market presented for British publishing. The threat came from opening the doors to competing American products, without any compensating entry into the United States. I hope that it is appreciated that, far from helping, clause 29 advertises the opportunity.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to continue to listen carefully to the amendments that are being advocated. I am sure that the spirit of the debate will be carried over into the Committee. There seems to be a genuine desire to create a better environment in this respect. These points need to be remedied so that Parliament helps, and does not penalise, our creative

industries which are so vital, not just to our culture, but to our economy. They are important to the extent that many hundreds of millions of pounds a year are involved.
In conclusion, I wish to take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton. Given the history of infrequent introductions of Copyright Bills and the rapid change in technology, we need both a more permanent form of machinery to keep this under review, and help in ensuring that our law keeps abreast of technical changes. I know that so far the Government have resisted the idea of a standing national council to assist in this process. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that that idea is supported by the Confederation of Information Communication Industries. He has resisted it to date, but I hope that he will reconsider it because there is considerable anxiety regarding the pace of change and the ability to get round elements of the Bill.
I welcome the general thrust of the Bill and I applaud my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry for introducing it. One accepts that there are desperately conflicting pressures. There is not a great deal of party political division over the subject, but there is commercial division and it would have been extremely tempting for the Government to leave it for yet another year. I wish the Bill well and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister notes the points raised in the debate.

Mr. John Fraser: This is not a controversial Bill; nobody will vote against it, and that would he the case whenever it was presented. Therefore, it is a disgraceful reflection on the British legislative system that we have had to wait 11 years since the publication of the Whitford report for legislation. It is the fault of Administrations of both parties. For a short time I was a Minister after the Whitford report was published. We must find a better way of legislating more quickly on matters on which there is no great disagreement on principle. If it takes 11 years to put into effect relatively uncontroversial but important legislation such as this, there seems little hope of reaching a common single European market by 1992.
The purpose of the legislation must be to ensure that the creator of intellectual property is properly rewarded for his effort, which ranges from a symphony to the composition of a computer software system. Those who spend time on the creation of a computer software system may spend more time on it than Mozart did on a symphony, and that effort must be properly rewarded. It is wrong that the results of a great deal of effort should be stolen so easily.
I hope that in future we shall be able to legislate more quickly on these matters, perhaps concentrating on matters of principle and rights. Enforcement and administrative matters might well be developed later. Of course, I welcome the Bill.
I shall deal briefly with three matters. First, I have had letters from several universities about the copyright in statutes and the statutory instruments passed by Parliament, and in law reports. Several people have written to me saying that it is wrong for them to be denied the opportunity to present for a court or tribunal legislation that has been passed by the House or, indeed, law reports that require the interpretation of legislation. I hope that the Minister will look at that problem. I am sure that other people have written to him about it. It is an important matter of principle that the law should be


accessible to all and that poor litigants, especially those who litigate themselves and who need to copy and take extracts from law reports, should be readily afforded the opportunity to do so without breaching copyright laws.
Secondly, moral right exists in many European countries. The Bill extends it to creative matters such as films. Sometimes when I go to the films I think that there is so much moral rights recorded in the film that the credit titles will be longer than the film. Sometimes the film has been going for 10 minutes before the moral rights are put up on the screen and the story resumes.
I think that the concept of moral right is correct, but we ought to be consistent about it. It will apply to writers of advertisement copy and producers of film, but it is not to extend to journalism. Indeed, when one considers some journalism in The Sun or the Evening Standard, perhaps moral right ought to be compulsory. When someone writes headlines such as "Big-boobed bimbo bonked", not only should the author of such a story have the moral right, if that is the right word in that context, to have his name recorded, but it ought to be compulsory so that we know who writes the disreputable smear stories that appear in some of our newspapers. So, if we are to have moral right, let us have it across the board.
There is equally a strong case for someone who produces, say, excellent photographs or sketches for newspapers, or a piece of writing or broadcasting, to have moral right. It should exist consistently across the board.
Thirdly. with regard to a blank tape levy, musicians, composers and performers especially have had their work plagiarised and stolen from time immemorial. Composers such as Donizetti and Rossini used sometimes not to tell the artists or the orchestra the contents of their great arias until the day of a performance. That led them into trouble. I believe that on one occasion a composer, working at the end of the 18th century, presented an aria at the last moment because he was fearful that his work would be reproduced on the streets of Venice without benefit to him. Other prima donnas who had learnt about it at the last moment insisted on another aria being written. I believe that on one occasion either Rossini or Donizetti was forced to sit down at about midday and write another aria to match the ones that had been disclosed at the last possible moment. Therefore, this has always been a problem.
The Government have recognised that. In 1986 they decided that the blank tape levy was a way of dealing with the matter. I am not suggesting that the levy is the only or the perfect way of dealing with the problem of giving artists their correct reward. But if anything has happened since 1986, it must be a reinforcement of the argument that composers and performers ought to be given protection against copying, even if it is only in the home. Since 1986 there has been on the market a flood of double-tape machines. Very few people nowadays buy a hi-fi system unless it has a back-to-back taping system. Such systems are widely advertised, and their sale has greatly increased in the past two or three years. That reinforces the argument for protecting artists whose work can be copied so easily.
The growth in the market of compact disc players means that one can buy a very high quality recording which will not deteriorate over time and can copy it over and over again. The copy does not have the hiss and

scratch that one gets from an ordinary gramophone recording. That again reinforces the argument for protecting the performer.
Indeed, everything that has happened in that time will reinforce the need to protect the artist and to present him with some reward. Of course, in the past, some people have achieved extraordinary rewards. I think that it was Puccini who earned more from Al Jolson than he did from many of his scores. Al Jolson's publisher took a piece from Tosca and turned it into a song called "I found my love in Avalon". Puccini sued Al Jolson's publisher and was awarded the entire royalties. I think that it produced a rather larger income for him than many of his famous operatic scores. I want to see artists and performers, whether of classical or pop music, getting their just rewards, as Puccini did from Al Jolson's productions. Something like a blank tape levy is the only way to do it.
I know that there are problems about administration. As a solution, I suggest that the Government ought to put into the Bill a framework based on a levy on tapes. It would not be as difficult to administer as the Government suggest. After all, there are few manufacturers of tapes and it would not be too difficult to catch and control those who import tapes. So one can define the market fairly easily. There are turnover records and the manufacturers can be identified separately in VAT returns. There is no great difficulty in identifying the market. The Government ought to tack on to the Bill a framework for doing this, but say that they will allow for an interval of time during which the industry could try to work out a voluntary arrangement.
Such systems operate elsewhere, for example, for the advertising industry. The control of advertisements works extremely well with the Advertising Standards Authority. The authority works voluntarily without any public expenditure involved. It does its job excellently. A system of self-regulation will be imported when we implement the European directive on advertising.
In exactly the same way, there could be a voluntary arrangement in this case. It all came about because the advertising industry was told that if it did not regulate itself there would be statutory intervention. If the Government put a framework into the Bill that they could implement in future, after perhaps three or even 10 years, so that they could transfer some of those rewards from the copiers of music, in particular, to its producers it would be possible for the tape producers to set about organising a voluntary scheme. It would involve no public expenditure or great bureaucracy and would transfer rewards from those who enjoy music and other productions to those who produce them.
I do not think it is an argument against this approach that performers such as Madonna or The Beatles earn a lot of money. They will earn a lot of money from their record productions in any case. But it tends to be artists who do not have large incomes who will suffer as a result of copying. I hope that the Government will adopt that compromise.
The Bill is uncontroversial. I am not asking for a U-turn, but I do ask the Government for what I believe the pop industry describes as a re-mix.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Some hon. Members—I count myself among them,—may be


experiencing a political version of déjà vu, having covered in previous debates at least part of the material that we are covering today.
Three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) successfully introduced what was to become the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985. I welcomed the opportunity to take part in that debate, just as I welcome this opportunity.
The town of Basingstoke, which dominates my constituency, has become over the years one of the major centres in the United Kingdom for the hi-tech industry. Constituency interests in intellectual property, and the Bill, are appreciable.
I echo the sentiments already expressed that it is good to take part in a debate where clearly there is no party political divide, especially after the uproar earlier this afternoon. I listened with great care and interest to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I substantially agree with what he said.
I do not for one moment challenge the need for the introduction of major legislation of this sort. On the contrary, I add my voice to those who demand such legislation. I fully accept the proposition that copyright law must be made more logical and consistent and that it must be brought up to date to take into account modern developments in communication technology.
As a former schoolmaster, I particularly welcome the suggestion that schools and other education establishments should he allowed to record broadcast material for teaching purposes. As has been said in the debate, it is essential to introduce new and effective measures for dealing with copyright theft, counterfeiting and so on.
I particularly welcome the Government's acknowledgement of the importance of getting the balance right between the interests of the innovator or designer and the interests of fair competition, with the benefits that that will bring to the consumer. The essential and fundamental question is whether that balance is right and whether the Bill has found the balance. I propose to restrict my comments exclusively to the design side of the Bill. Initially, I must confess that I have my doubts about whether the balance is right.
My attention was particularly caught by a choice of words by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister who spoke of the need to legislate to provide limited protection for the designer and innovator. I felt that the context in which he used those words demanded not the term "limited" but "adequate". At several key points in the Bill the interests of the innovator and designer may not be sufficiently safeguarded—lost, as it were, to the interests of the consumer and fair competition.
The Bill carries with it the abolition of design copyright. It replaces it with two forms of protection, each of which is accompanied by major exemptions, which have the objective of allowing spare part copying, to which much reference has been made. Under part IV, the option of registered design is limited only to aesthetic design. Arguably, that is a weakness, although I acknowledge that the period of protection is sufficiently extended.
Similarly, under part III, an automatic design right is created for functional, non-aesthetic designs and non-registered aesthetic designs, but the period of

protection is only five years. In the following five years the innovator or designer is obliged to allow rivals to compete and thereafter no protection is given.
The spare parts debate dominated much of the proceedings in another place. During those deliberations, most attention was given to the motor vehicle industry. I do not for one moment doubt the importance of that industry or the specific problems generated in it, but, arguably, their Lordships' debate was the poorer for its great concentration on the industry. Arguably, the proposals in the Bill are couched in terms which, to an excessive extent, reflect the interests of the motor vehicle industry. As a result, arguably, protection has been completely removed from a wide range of design products in other industries. The impact on the rest of industry could be dramatic and highly undesirable.
Without for one moment denying the need for the legislation, and while warmly welcoming it, I believe that there is no doubt that there is a growing and articulate body of thought that is concerned about the proposals on designs. The essential argument is that the Bill will, in practice, substantially weaken the incentives for British companies to innovate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) made much of that and I entirely endorse his comments.
More specifically, it can be argued that British companies will be at a disadvantage compared with overseas competitors since so many of the latter enjoy far greater protection. I understand that functional design is protected for 50 years in France and for 25 years in Japan and that there is limitless protection in Portugal. Without protection, the incentive to innovate is seriously undermined. The Standing Committee will have to address that problem seriously.
An area for concern is the suggestion that the introduction of registered design will impose major new burdens on business. The Government's overall objective is to decrease the burdens on industry. It is a fact that tens or even hundreds of development designs are produced for every product that is eventually marketed. Very probably during that process the designer will wish to protect those development designs as well as his final product. If that is so, the Bill will impose on the designer a process of registration that will be costly and time-consuming and might prove to be bureaucratically burdensome. The impact may be felt most by small businesses, that very sector of our national and economic life which the Government so rightly wish to nurture.
A second area for concern, which must be considered carefully, is the argument that functional design deserves greater recognition than is currently given in the Bill. To start with, and almost in parentheses, I confess that I am confused and somewhat cynical about the rigid distinction between aesthetic and functional design. I wonder whether, in practice, that rigid distinction can be made. However, accepting for a moment that such a distinction can be drawn, I must ask why the Bill gives such a low priority to protecting functional design.
The Bill would have us believe that artistic endeavour and aesthetic design are more worthy of protection than functional design. Why should industrial innovation and functional excellence be regarded as less worthy of protection? Surely functional excellence, ease of assembly and economic use of material are as much of good design as aesthetic qualities, yet in the Bill functional excellence


receives the protection only of design right rather than of registered design. The Bill almost presents functional design as a second-class citizen.
The protection of five years given by the Bill is insufficient to encourage innovation to the extent that we should like. It is insufficient to allow British industry to compete on an equal footing with overseas competitors.
A third area for concern in the Bill is the "must fit, must match" principle. Surely it contains loopholes and inconsistencies. The Bill excludes from all protection many products that cannot be regarded just as spare parts. Intentionally or unintentionally, it will be possible for a host of composite unit products—hi-fi, kitchen units, food processors and so on—to be copied freely. Surely that cannot be right. Nor can it be the intention of the Bill. For such items, there will be no protection, which is unacceptable—hence so much of the concern that is being expressed about the design part of the Bill.
Similarly, the "must match" principle, intentionally or unintentionally, encompasses a wide range of items, including product casing formed from two or more pieces. In other words, the design casing of a huge range of products will lose protection. The important point is that many firms have developed products that are novel primarily in appearance or in the interconnections. Protection will be removed from those.
Let me expand on the point that I tried to draw from the hon. Member for Dagenham in an intervention. As we know, the Bill removes design copyright. It can be argued that it has not replaced it with adequate protection for innovators. Despite the hours of consideration given to the Bill in another place and the conclusions reached there, it may still be argued that design copyright should not be eliminated. However, if it is to be eliminated, functional design must be protected for a greater length of time.
I accept—indeed I warmly welcome—the Bill and I welcome the opportunity for this debate. The key to the problem is to get the balance of conflicting interests right, and I have my doubts that that balance has been achieved for the design aspects.

Mr. Brian Wilson: This interesting debate has so far covered everything from the defence industry to Madonna and doubtless a few variations are yet to come. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who made interesting points about design, if I restrict myself to one or two specific aspects of the Bill. The only interests that I have to declare are as a member of the National Union of Journalists and as someone who occasionally tapes music. Let me say immediately that I would have no objection to paying a little to those who have created that music.
Let me deal with the aspects of the Bill affecting journalism. It is important that what is, by common consent, a necessary and valuable Bill should not have a marginal impact upon groups of people whom there is no intention to hurt. While the major industrial concerns are being discussed, some such effects could slip through almost unnoticed. I am especially concerned about clause 11, which replaces clause 4 of the 1956 Act. Under that Act a journalist who wrote a piece of work had to accept—perhaps sometimes reluctantly—that the proprietor of the publication was entitled to the copyright in that work so

far as it related to its appearance in any newspaper, magazine or other periodical. In all other respects, the copyright was retained by the author. Thus a newspaper or magazine could syndicate staff journalists' work in other newspapers or magazines, but if the work was broadcast, included in a book or fed into a database, the author held the copyright and was entitled to recompense for its use. When the Bill entered the Lords, that was roughly the position.
However, quite a dramatic change was made in the Lords. I had hoped that, in amending the Bill, the Lords would have moved towards protecting the rights of journalists, perhaps allowing journalists' employers to use their work in their other publications but limiting it to that. In fact, the other place moved in the opposite direction. The effect of clause 11 as drafted would be that once the journalist has produced a piece of work for his own publication—presumably in return for the salary that that publication pays him—that work belongs to the proprietor, who can do whatever he likes with it. The effect of that is absurd. A relatively low-paid journalist—and they exist—is paid for a piece of work that acquires a value, because of the journalist's reputation or the subject matter or quality of the work, and it is then open season for the proprietor to maximise his revenue by selling that work all over the world and to all branches of the media. That is going too far towards helping the proprietor's interests and diminishing the legitimate rights of journalists. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been known to contribute to the written and broadcast media from time to time and I suspect that they understand the problem. A journalist works for the money that he is paid, but it seems very unfair if that work is then flogged all over the world for large amounts of money, not a penny of which he is entitled to.
If the Bill is unfair to journalists who write, its effects on photographers are far more pernicious. Perhaps I may explain. Article 10(1) of the Berne convention, which governs such matters, states:
It shall be permissible in all the countries of the Union to make short quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals, as well as to include them in press summaries".
Most people would say that that was fair enough. In line with article 10(1), the fair dealing provisions of the 1956 Act allowed journalists to make quotations from other sources to clarify a news report, so long as prior permission was obtained. Clause 30 of the Bill, however, removes the distinction between fair dealings with literary work and fair dealing with photographic work.
Clause 30 (1)(b) proposes that the use of material free of charge for the purposes of news reporting should be extended to photographic material. The implication for photographers—particularly freelance photographers—is devastating. One cannot use a bit of a picture in the same way as one can use a quotation from a story or other piece of literature to illustrate a piece or work. One can only use the picture itself. If every Tom, Dick and Harry the world over had the right to use other people's pictures to illustrate his work without paying for them, many photographers would simply lose their livelihood. Everyone knows that freelance photographers are not paid for their work as they do it. The pictures that they take lie in libraries and are used over a period of months and perhaps years. That is what provides the freelance photographer with his income.
The journalists' third anxiety about the Bill comes under the heading of moral rights. Essentially, we are discussing whether it should be the right of the publisher or editor to do exactly what he likes with the work that a journalist provides. The original clause 69, which is now clause 73, grants the right to be identified as the author of an article but then makes the right meaningless by stating that the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with clause 74. That latter clause requires that the assertion must be in writing. Such a requirement negates the whole purpose of establishing moral rights and the NUJ seeks an amendment to make it easier for copyright holders to assert their moral rights. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that one has the moral right not to have what one writes manipulated and altered—still appearing under one's name but being used for a purpose quite alien to what was originally intended. We can surely agree that such a right should be incorporated in the Bill.
The National Union of Journalists expresses valid concerns. The union has no political axe to grind but, in the spirit of what has been said about inventors, intellectual property and the right to possession of the intangible, the Bill should defend journalists' rights because they fall into that category. As it stands, the Bill moves too far towards the interests of proprietors and publishers.
As to taping, like other hon. Members, I have had letters from constituents who are confused about it. Some of them, who are musicians, composers and members of the Performing Right Society, cannot understand why the Government have done a remarkable U-turn on home taping. As we have heard already, the 1986 White Paper recognised the extent of the problem and proposed as a solution to legitimise home taping, except for computer programs and videos, and to introduce a 10 per cent. levy on blank audio cassettes, which was to be distributed to copyright owners. That was a commonsense and modest solution. There is statistical evidence that it would have the full support of the vast majority who tape music for their own benefit.
People who take the trouble to tape music, and who have an interest in music almost by definition, respect the musicians, composers, and others who have created the work. People who do home taping are getting something on the cheap but they would not want it to be thought of as stealing the work of others. The modest levy which was proposed would have enabled everyone to have a clear conscience. The product would be cheaper, even with the levy. People would not have to buy the packaging and those who produced the work would get some recompense.
The arguments adduced against the levy have concentrated on other categories of users. The needs of those people could be accommodated in the legislation. I suggest that the arguments we have heard are a subterfuge. It is estimated that 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the blank tape for 100 million cassettes imported and sold in the United Kingdom is used to make illegal copies. The Minister should not use an argument which affects only 10 per cent. to destroy the case for a levy on 90 per cent. of blank tapes. A principle is involved. The same principle is recognised in public lending rights and I hope that the Government will accept it in regard to taping.
A great array of people support the taping levy. Sir Michael Tippett and other composers point out that, while £7 million as the total figure which a taping royalty would produce is not much in terms of a Cabinet Minister's salary, it would make all the difference to a composer who is earning less than half the national wage.
Similarly, Sir David Lumsden of the Royal Academy of Music and the heads of other music colleges have expressed concern that there are few enough places for students of music and people involved in the music profession to get their income from and that to deprive them of this money is unreasonable, particularly when it seemed that they would get it.
In a letter a constituent from Kilbirnie says:
It was understood that this principle of a levy was to be included in the Copyright Bill now going through Parliament as the only effective means by which these royalties could be protected; however, the Government has performed a U-turn on this issue, having dropped the royalty proposal and now we are left with nothing. This legislation would have been a unique opportunity and still could be, to right this grave injustice.
The appropriate words are "still could be". The Government could change their minds again. There will be fine tuning to the legislation and I hope that it will include changes in the Bill as it affects journalists and the music profession and industry.

Mr. Churchill: There has been considerable agreement between the two Front Benches. When that occurs, it behoves Parliament to look at the measure with scepticism. It is with pleasure that I agree that almost everything which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has said, with one qualification. I would not favour a levy on blank tapes, above all because it would hit the blind who rely a great deal on the use of tapes for newsletters and newspapers which sighted people record for them.
I intervene briefly as an author and journalist. I also declare an interest as a trade unionist and as the parliamentary convenor of the Institute of Journalists—wholly unpaid, I hasten to say.
The Bill represents only the second major attempt in the past 75 years to amend the legislation on copyright. No doubt it is intended that, like its predecessors, it should stand the test of time. I very much hope that, suitably amended, it will.
There is much in the Bill which I welcome, but I regret that it is fatally flawed in regard to the interests of journalists, first, in respect of the ownership by journalists of the secondary copyright in the material which they produce, which has traditionally been theirs, and, secondly, in respect of the moral rights being introduced for the first time into British copyright legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Berne copyright convention.
When the Bill was introduced in another place it was acceptable on both counts in regard to protection afforded to journalists, both staff and freelance. Regrettably, Ministers in another place surrendered on these points to the powerful lobby of publishers which is to be found in their Lordships' House. Indeed, there are no more powerful lobbyists than those cloaked in ermine and bedecked with coronets. One must wonder if the time has come for the establishment of a register of Lordships' interests, just as there is a Register of Members' Interests.
In consequence of the amendments that the Government accepted in another place, the Bill has been drastically amended as it affects the rights of journalists and, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North rightly mentioned, photographers, in favour of employers and at the expense of staff and freelance journalists and photographers. Journalists will lose the right which has been theirs since the Copyright Act 1911, confirmed by the Copyright Act 1956, to retain secondary rights in their creative work. This is an important point which the Government must address. They must reinstate the provision in Committee. As it stands, the Bill discriminates against the interests of the creators of original work in journalism and photography. In this respect it has become nothing less than a gaffer's Bill.
The second objection that I voice is on moral rights. One has not been able to find much morality in the gutters of Fleet Street of late. None the less, the concept of moral rights has been imported into the legislation in consequence of the Berne convention which goes back to 1886 and of which we, 102 years later, are finally taking note.
The 1986 White Paper on intellectual property and innovation, command 9712, explains:
amendment of the law will be necessary to comply with the Paris text of the Berne Convention, which requires member states to protect some at least of the moral rights at least until the expiry of copyright.
Nevertheless, though included in the Bill as the required additional safeguards for the creators of copyright works, the provision on moral rights was so extensively modified during the Bill's passage through their Lordships' House, under pressure from the publishers' lobby, that, far from affording the protection which the Berne convention sought to give, it may now remove from many individuals even the right to protest at the infringement of such modest rights as they already possess. That cannot be the Government's intent. As defined in clauses 73, 76 and 78, there are three kinds of moral rights: the right to be identified as the author, the right to object to derogatory treatment of one's work, and the right not to have one's work falsely attributed.
As foreshadowed in the Whitford report and in the 1981 Green Paper, the White Paper contained a proposal to legislate on moral rights:

"(a) authors will be given the right to claim authorship and to object to distortion, but not to modification of a work to which they could not reasonably refuse consent;
(b) these moral rights will be independent of the economic rights, and will be exercisable only by the author. After his death they may be exercised by the person who inherits the copyright or, if the author no longer owns the copyright at his death, by the person to whom he has bequeathed them. An author will be able to waive his moral rights, and such waiver will override any inheritance or bequest; and
(c) moral rights will apply for the duration of the copyright."
As originally introduced the Bill met in large measure the points contained in the White Paper. That is why I am at a loss to understand the way in which Ministers in another place conceded the point before the publishers, who are to be found there in large numbers. There are certainly more publishers there than there are journalists. As a result of financial and other pressures, which could be exerted against an author or a journalist to cause him or her to waive moral rights for all time, the provision now in the Bill for the waiver of those rights is completely against

the spirit of the Berne convention. The rights are supposed to be "non-assignable" and "separated from commercial values".
Instead, under the Bill, the waiver
may relate to … works generally … existing or future … and … unconditional".
It is regrettable that the amendments were accepted in another place, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who are dealing with the Bill—particularly as it passes through its Committee stage—to look at those clauses and undertake to table amendments to remove the exceptions that drastically affect the existing rights of journalists, as well as the other rights being brought in under the terms of moral rights. I ask them specifically to look at the rights contained in clauses 11, 75 and 77 and that they further amend clause 83—which permits waivers—to require that the waivers must be specific in relation to time and circumstances.
Further, in the spirit of the Berne convention and the White Paper, it should be made an offence under the Bill to offer a financial inducement or commercial advantage for the waiving or non-assertion of any moral right or to penalise an author who asserts or refuses to waive any such right. I trust that in replying to the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs will express his willingness on behalf of the Government to grant justice to journalists in this respect so that they will not be disadvantaged by the Bill, which I am sure was not the Government's intention.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) asked me to participate in this evening's debate on the basis that it would be one of non-political controversy. Having read in Hansard the debates in another place, and heard the interesting and knowledgable contributions in this debate, I agree that, although the presentation of the Bill is an area of non-political controversy, the matter has caused a great deal of controversy, both in terms of the Government's proposals and the amendments which have been tabled, and from my point of view as a Back Bencher. It is interesting, when coming here as a Back Bencher with no axe to grind, to note how, when lobbying hon. Members for this evening's debate, 'the various interested parties offer contrary advice on, in some instances, the same clauses. Therefore, I wish the Minister and my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench well in trying to square the circle in Committee in regard to these complex and confusing issues.
The issues are critical to much of British industry and the arts, and through them to the nation's creative genius. I understand that the Minister has for some time been trying to break into the area of creative genius in the arts. Because of the unanimity in the House, I wonder whether in his reply he will abandon the political context and sing us his version of "I Did it My Way". [Laughter.] Well, hon. Members were rather slow there.
Previous Second Reading debates in which I have taken part have been controversial. The Opposition and the Government were at each other and much of the nitty gritty of the debate was not highlighted. Therefore, from my point of view, this evening's debate has been useful in setting out the agenda for the Committee stage. We must get this legislation right, and the fine tuning which will take place in Committee is necessary to help achieve that aim.


I accept that there are such conflicting interests among some of the lobbyists involved that it will be virtually impossible, despite the fine tuning and agreements that take place, for the Bill to be supported unanimously by all sections of British industry and the arts when it comes out of Committee.
I hope to outline some of the briefings that I, and I am sure other hon. Members, have received from a number of sources on some of the important aspects of the legislation. Six major bodies with an interest in the Bill have written to me. They are the Committee on Photographic Copyright, the British Automotive Parts Promotion Council, the Music Copyright Reform Group, the information technology industries, Phonographic Performance Ltd. and the Confederation of British Industry. As I have said, sometimes those various groups oppose each other vehemently and cause confusion.
In my previous life as a local government councillor, I was also a director of the Wigan development company and the Wigan Information Technology company. I was also one of those instrumental in introducing a business centre into Wigan, purchased and run through public resources with private capital. All three of those business interests made a major contribution not just to introducing new industry into our area, but in trying to encourage innovation, in both the public and the private sectors. They used resources to encourage new inventors and people with new ideas not only to set up their operations in Wigan but to assist them in developing their ideas for production capacity and for sales both at home and abroad. Time will tell whether those initiatives will be successful. Paramount to the success of those innovations in British industry is protection for those with new ideas about production capacity in industry and new information technology. It is critical for such developments that protection is provided in this legislation. Members of Parliament must respect the necessity to ensure that British industry is protected.
If this were a defence debate about espionage I suspect that 300 or 400 hon. Members would attend and participate, including the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Here we are dealing with industrial espionage. I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) who spoke about the history of British industry and of how often the ideas of our inventors and our industrial innovations have been stolen and used by foreign competitors to produce materials that were then imported back to the United Kingdom. So it is important that these ideas should be protected from industrial espionage by people, at home or abroad, who seek to secure and use them to their benefit and the detriment of our nation and of those who have used their own mental capacities and financial resources to design new information technology systems and other things that are essential to the British economy and
I welcome the commitment given by both Front Benches to ensuring that British artistic, industrial and technological creativity should be protected. However, I am worried—I seek the Minister's reassurance on this—that unless we get this right, British artists and industry will be put at a grave disadvantage as compared with our overseas competitors. I hope that the Minister will take up these matters positively in Committee.
On 25 April the CBI issued a statement to coincide with this debate. Before I am accused of using a counterfeit I hasten to add that I shall quote from the CBI's brief. It says that
Britain's designers and inventors need a just reward for their efforts.
The Government's aim in the Bill is to strike a balance between encouraging creativity and the need to ensure competition.
The CBI believes the Bill has got the balance wrong.
The Bill (Part III) introduces a new 'design right', covering designs applied in industry. The new `design right' will:

—Effectively have a protected term of only 5 years as opposed to copyright (life of author plus 50 years) and registered design (25 years).
—So as to solve difficulties over car 'spares', it will not allow any protection where two new rules apply—'must fit' (Clause 198(3)) and 'must match' (Clauses 198(3) and 248(1)).
The Bill will thus remove protection from the vast majority of design-intensive industries in the UK and leave them less competitive than their rivals abroad.
The CBI went further in its detailed criticism of the Government's attempt merely to strike a balance between competition and the need to encourage investment in new ideas. It says:
Competition Law should look after anti-competitive procedures. Weakening proper industrial design protection does not do this. It simply weakens the market. It is protection which encourages a strong and vibrant home market. The consumer must have a choice. But this implies not just on costs but by having a range of competitive alternative products. There would not be, the present diversity of consumer products without intellectual property right protection.
Education provides an example. Because it has been almost impossible to police intellectual property rights in educational software products, almost no good educational software is now being produced. No protectiom can mean no new products.
As the law stands, functional design enjoys copyright for the designer's life, plus 50 years. Aesthetic design is judged on eye appeal, not artistic merit, for 15 years from its first launch date. The Government now propose three different kinds of protection: design right, registered designs and copyright. I believe that in practice these proposals are weak. Design right gives protection against copying for functional as well as aesthetic works applied industrially for 10 years, but the last five years are subject to a licence of right, giving an effective protection of only five years.
Registration gives a monopoly for 25 years on industrial-supplied designs having aesthetic merit. Registration must be applied for and it is not cheap. Copyright mainly covers surface decoration and industrially applied designs against copying genuine copyright. However, when design has been exploited in one article, protection against it being copied in another is limited to 25 years. It applies to graphic works, photographs, sculptures or collages, irrespective of artistic quality, and to works of artistic merit. The Bill increases the general protection for registered designs from 13 to 25 years.
The CBI also recently carried out comparisons with overseas competitors and produced a study that shows that, if the Bill becomes law, protection in the United Kingdom will be much less than what is available to competitors abroad in the domestic markets. The CBI argues that the best form of intellectual property right to protect design is copyright. It does not give an absolute monopoly, and so new generations of original design are


not hindered. It comes into existence automatically and does not involve costly procedures, which is particularly important to small and medium-sized companies.
During my experience with the Wigan development company, these were precisely the sort of companies with which we were involved, and we tried to attract private and public capital to encourage such companies to invest in new ideas and in long-term new job opportunities. It would be a sad development for British industry if those companies were affected—albeit unwittingly—by the Government, if amendments to the Bill are not accepted.
The impact on competition is less than in cases in which an absolute monopoly is given. The CBI wrote to the Minister and set out five proposals, which would form the basis for amendments that the Government should consider in Committee. They are: the restoration of dual protection by design copyright, as well as the new design right; increasing the design right term to 25 years; the removal of the unwarranted extended exceptions "must fit" and "must match", and their inclusion in the Bill as defences against infringement, rather than as exceptions to the right of protection; the control of possible abuse of monopoly by the provision of a power to grant licences in appropriate cases where abuse is shown; and the provision for the Secretary of State to have the power, in certain sections of industry or in particular cases, to reduce the term from 25 years, as appropriate, or to provide for the grant of licences within that term, as appropriate to different industrial needs.
I can understand the motor manufacturers' interest in this matter. I represent a constituency in the north-west and I know that a great number of people are directly or indirectly employed by the motor manufacturing industry. My borough has suffered from the massive shake-up of British Leyland, John Brown Tractors and the automotive products industry. So the pressure that was applied to the other place was understandable, and their Lordships came to their conclusions accordingly. However, as Conservative Members have said, the balance has shifted too far in the direction of that sector of interest to the possible detriment of the development of industry as a whole. We need seriously to consider redressing the balance to ensure both that the motor manufacturers' interests are preserved and that the legitimate interests of other sectors of the British economy are not undermined.
Like other hon. Members, I have an interest in other important areas of controversy in the Bill—piracy, photography, music, information technology products, and the design of same.
In the time left to me, I should like to give my support to those hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of the photographic industry and the National Union of Journalists. I am also particularly concerned about the submissions made on behalf of the photographic industry in respect of some of the amendments. As politicians, we should all take kindly to the photographic industry as we are sometimes the beneficiaries of the artistic activities and work of those involved in the industry, although some of us are portrayed in a more flattering light than others. I am concerned that the livelihood of news photographers will be threatened. That has been amply outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I do not wish to go into detail on that, but I hope that the Minister will give a commitment seriously to consider in Committee amendments that take account of those anxieties.
I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that the Government will approach the amendments in a constructive manner and that we can bring forward a Bill which, if not acceptable to British industry and the arts as a whole, will nevertheless be acceptable to the vast majority. I hope that it will ensure, in the long run, that we protect the innovative skills of industry and the arts in this country. By protecting those skills, we protect both the internal and external markets which are so important to our economy and to the European economy as a whole.
By doing so, we shall also develop the economy of the north-west and rebuild and reshape it after the rundown of the traditional industries of shipbuilding, textiles and heavy engineering. That will provide an opportunity for those innovative skills to flourish. It will provide new jobs and industrial opportunities and a fair reward for those who, through their skills, develop new ideas and products to the benefit of their regions and of our industrial economy as a whole.

Mr. Richard Page: It has already been said that the Bill does not feature very highly in the Richter scale of political sexiness compared with other Bills before us this week. It could be described by people of a kind and charitable disposition as a technical, complex and heavy Bill. For that reason, I admire the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) when he says that he is looking forward to the Committee stage. I put that down to youthful enthusiasm and I hope that, if I serve on the Committee, some of his enthusiasm will rub off on me.

Mr. McCartney: It is perhaps because I am not married. I have nothing else to do.

Mr. Page: I do not think that the Bill will help the hon. Gentleman in that direction.
I hope that the Bill will help British industry. and commerce. It is vital that we get the matter right. In the past, the United Kingdom has been a world leader in this area, but time and events have moved on. Everyone agrees that the Copyright Act 1956 must be updated, but there are obviously some differences of opinion about the way to proceed.
There is a rumour that the long-awaited Green Paper from the European Commission is due shortly, but we cannot wait for it. We need to modernise our copyright law and, if we wait for the Green Paper, it will take a considerable time for any harmonisation to take place.
One of the traditional problems of copyright has been to explain to the layman what it is. That has been made even more complex through the scientific advances, giving, day by day, easier public access to intellectual property rights. The Bill has to achieve a fair balance between the creator and the producer on one side and the consumer and user on the other. One group wants strong protection and control whereas the other wants immediate access, preferably at no cost, but, if the consumer has to pay anything, it must be the cheapest price. We must strike a balance in the middle. We must protect civil liberties, but we must not discourage creativity, research and innovation. If I remember the matter correctly from my school days, an equation must balance. We must put something into that equation to recognise the constantly changing scientific scene.
One of the most common examples is records. Some hon. Members will remember the old bakelite discs, although they were before my time. We then moved on to plastic discs, analogue tapes and compact discs and digital audio tapes are now appearing on the horizon. With that rapidly moving scientific scene, we must get the matter right.
The figures quoted as representing the contribution of copyright to our gross domestic product have varied from 2·6 per cent. to 7·5 per cent., depending on which base one takes. However, whichever base one takes, those figures represent a sizeable contribution to our economy. That sheer size demands our attention. We must have justice for both sides. I am tempted to quote the Emperor Justinian who said:
Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to everyone his due.
Perhaps that is not a good example because the Roman empire collapsed a few years later and the Barbarians won with their motto that might is right.
I welcome the provisions that bring about stronger legal support in respect of infringement of copyright. A few holes must still be plugged, but we have taken a substantial step along the right path. The updating of our copyright law is vital because, whatever our faults as a nation, and we have quite a few, we have two strengths—our ingenuity and our inventiveness. It is right for the Government to protect that ingenuity and strength. I do not know how we have come by that, but, as an island race, we have always had an open door for refugees and exiles, in addition to experiencing the odd invasion. There is an old saying that those who get up and go, get up and go. Perhaps some of them have come here and contributed to the cultural strength of our nation.
The House should be grateful to the other place. It has given the Bill the first canter round the course and has highlighted the areas of agreement and disagreement. Those debates have given the interested parties a chance to contribute. The march of technology has created much of the reason for the Bill. I was impressed to see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has put into the Bill a clause to deal with computer-generated products and artificial intelligence and, in Committee, we shall see a closer definition of that work.
I hope that, in Committee, we shall touch again on the issues introduced tonight. We have heard much about the "must-fit" and "must-match" problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) provided a powerful trailer to the arguments to be advanced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) outlined the case for the blank tape levy exceedingly well. I have no doubt that those arguments will be put forward again in Committee.
I also hope that the Committee will consider more closely the terms employed in the Bill and try to cover the computer software advances that are taking place. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton in that. I hope too that we shall consider some of the mundane matters, for example, some of the definitions of what is a film. The 1956 Act defines a film as a recording of visual images on any medium from which a moving picture may be, by any means, produced. Most

films today have a soundtrack with them and I hope that we can deal with that point. We should also have a stab at defining a public performance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has outlined the need to clear up the position of location systems using abstracts of scientific and technical publications and I hope that that can be brought within the copyright law.
The main point on which I want to concentrate my argument and the minds of hon. Members was voiced by the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham in the other place when he spoke about the impact of rental shops and digital audio tapes in downtown Tokyo. He mentioned the impact that that was having on Japan's recording industry. In fact, it almost ruined it and Japan has now introduced copyrights to protect its industries, although it has not helped too much on the international scene.
As Britain has a leading position in international records—I am told that it has some 25 per cent. of the market—that area must be considered and protected. I am aware that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry introduced a rental right at the end of the Bill's passage in the other place to give some protection, but I hope that our Standing Committee will consider whether that is sufficient. I took some encouragement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he said that he would like to look at that to make sure that he was satisfied that we have got it right.
Again, time moves against us and I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to one last point in reply to the reference to spoilers and anti-spoilers. I hope that not too much faith is placed on such devices. Time has shown that for every lock there is a key and we should look to the law to be the belt to any braces of any electrical or mechanical spoiling device.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that in Committee it proceeds with the same spirit of friendship and constructiveness that exists in the House today, and I look forward to it reaching the statute book in the shortest possible time.

Miss Emma Nicholson: This is a complex and multifaceted piece of legislation, which covers different areas of interest for many hon. Members. I wonder whether I could ask even those right hon. and hon. Members who are waiting to speak to turn aside from studying the massive injustices that the Bill, I now learn, will inflict on journalists, who are usually a hardy breed and very good at turning injustices on to other people—I am sorry about their future suffering—and away also from the most fascinating subject that was raised earlier, the regime for replicating motor exhausts, to something that genuinely excites me—the computer industry and the protection of its intellectual heritage.
I must declare an interest. It is not a financial interest any longer now that I am here; it is a professional interest. I was trained by ICL as a computer programmer. I went on to be an assistant analyst and computer consultant with 10 years hands-on experience in the industry. I am now enjoying an industry and Parliament fellowship with IBM, and I maintain links with my old colleagues who are now senior members of the British Computer Society.
I welcome the Bill, which aims to set the matter of copyright protection on a more logical and consistent


basis, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says. It seeks to strike the balance between rewarding the creator of an artistic endeavour without stifling invention—a difficult balance to achieve.
I am not absolutely comfortable that the Bill is yet full enough to protect computer software. I use the words "full enough" on purpose. That may he because it does not recognise the uniqueness of computer software. I wonder whether the definition of computer software as a subset of literary works is accurate or adequate enough to perform the task of copyright protection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) reminded us that in 1956 computers were the size of a house. He must have been referring to Leo I in London university, which was housed opposite the British museum in three separate houses. I cannot say that it created pseudo-Shakespeare, because no binary-coded decimal machine code is a naturally aurally appealing tongue. But I recall creating fugues on early computers. On the other hand, I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would, in consequence, indentify software as a byproduct of J. S. Bach.
Computer software is the product of new methods of identifying and transmitting human thought. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton referred to artificial intelligence when he said how difficult it was to define computer software. That is so very old. Software is not artificial; it is real. It is definable and it can be properly protected.
We must not wait until 1992. The suggestion put forward earlier that this is such a complicated industry that we could not do it now is absolutely wrong. Once the Government have created the redefinition of computer software which is right and appropriate, this will be no U-turn but a set of nano-second decisions by the Secretary of State which will bring the Government to the right conclusions. Indeed, if we are stuck we can find a suitably equipped personal computer, with doubtless superbly registered parts, compatible and user-friendly to help. I am tempted to say that we might bring in to the House a new language that would certainly be more Member-friendly than that which we heard earlier. Hon. Members will know that one of the easiest computer languages is called BASIC. It is certainly basic, but not as primitive as that used by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
Let me return to the difficulty, suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton, of protecting the product, computer software, which is the creation of a rapidly changing industry. He gave the impression that that is well-nigh impossible. Of course, it is not, because change is the essence of the computer industry. If the computer industry were not changing, it would be dying.
I cannot use the term "manifestly" impossible. That has a Latin root. We must remember when we are thinking about computer software that our language is literary and how difficult it is to think in any other terminology. We have to think laterally to find a definition that fits this unique product.
Hon. Members have said that a person who is out of programming for three years will have to be wholly retrained. Of course, such a person will need to be updated, but the industry moves forward in a way that enables a person to return to play a useful part. The state

of the art means that we have to think differently for the products of software designers—those few highly creative people—and the ordinary programmer. Although they create different levels of excellent product, both are still creating protectable work.
Let me deal briefly with a few amendments that I know that the Government will wish to consider and doubtless will consider in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton does not need to go back to 1956 because we have the excellent Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985. One of the provisions in that Act was important. It made it clear that storing a work in a computer is a form of reproduction which requires the copyright owner's consent. The Bill does not make that clear. I feel confident that the Government intend to uphold the promise that was made on that in the other place and that we shall see an amendment to clause 17(2) to that effect.
Let me deal now with a more complicated problem. The White Paper in its introduction states that
we must accommodate new technical developments—satellite broadcasting, computer programs and electronic data storage
and so on.
The creation of expert systems that not only answer the questions put to them, not on paper of course, but through keyboards, for example, such as a medical diagnostic system or others, at the moment fall under the clauses relating to cable programmes. That is to say, data bases which are changed interactively through user-connected terminals—as we have all done so often in the computer field—over a telecommunications network are defined as expert systems.
As the Bill stands, clause 7(2)(a) may seem to exclude such valuable systems from protection. I feel confident that the Government will introduce an amendment to rectify that situation as was offered on Second Reading in the other place.
In the Bill, as a subset of literary works, computer programs come within the fair dealing provisions of clause 29. Therefore, it may appear that home copying of computer software can now be exempted from copyright infringement on the grounds that it is for private study and that research organisations may justify the copying of programs on the basis that it is for research purposes. I am sure that that comes about because clause 29 refers so much to literary and other such works. I suggest that that would be an unintended consequence of the provisions which would be unwelcome to the industry and the Government. All that is needed is an amendment to exclude electronic reproduction from the fair dealing clause 29. I am confident that that will be considered.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister referred to a welcome amendment to deal with spoilers. I was not absolutely clear whether he would incorporate in that amendment programs that already exist to prevent the illicit copying of programs. There are programs in production already designed to defeat the software protection mechanism.
Clause 24 makes it an offence to possess an article that can be used to make infringing copies. I doubt whether a program, within the meaning of the Bill, is classified as an article and would therefore come within that provision. If that is so, the clause would have to be changed to make it


clear that possessing one of the copy-making programs that already exist would be an offence similar to possessing an infringing printing plate.
I have left possibly the most difficult point to last. Copyright works of all descriptions—literary, artistic, musical, photographic, software, film or sound recordings—can now be recorded and reproduced from a single optical disc. That point throws up many weaknesses in the Bill. It butts on eight separate clauses. If left untouched, it could lead to unmanageable results. Would it not be better to have a copyright law which treated all works of intellectual endeavour in the same way? Otherwise, we might inadvertently end up with a very difficult patch job on the old law rather than creating the new, necessary safety net. That is a complex problem. I could describe it at length, but other hon. Members want to speak on that. Indeed I could stress the eight different clauses which will be in conflict with each other and which will make that point unmanageable for optical discs.
The Minister referred to rental right. I am delighted to learn that that subject will be examined, perhaps through the introduction of a clause already discussed in another place, to permit the provisions of clause 63 to be overridden by contract. I also strongly welcome the Government dropping the tape levy. Such a levy would have encouraged home copying of computer software. That would be unmanageable. From the social angle, dropping the levy is of great value to the blind. As a musician I welcome the Government's decision and am comfortable with it.
We can be market leaders in software protection. We are much further ahead than any other European country in that area. Justifiably, I look to the Government to secure for us that enviable position. Britain is a world leader in some forms of computer software. Let us support that work.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I was greatly impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and by her special knowledge of computers and other matters—until she made her point about the blank tape levy.
Although I personally have no financial interest at all in the Bill, no fewer than four of my close relations have interests in recording or copyright matters. My wife is an actress and singer who records. My brother-in-law is the composer Panufnik, whose symphonies and other works are recorded. I have a sister who has written 18 books, and my brother has an interest, recently much reduced, in a record company. Although perhaps not obliged to do so, I prefer to declare those family interests.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to the need to "protect creative talent". To be creative seems to me to be fundamental. The creativity of artists, performers, composers and writers is basic to the enrichment of people's lives. In the House of Commons, perhaps because we are properly at the receiving end of so many time-consuming welfare cases of constituents, we do not always devote enough time or give enough weight to the

creative side of human life, which is just as important to human well-being and which Parliament ought to encourage. We should positively lean in that direction.
Of course the successful management and growth of the British economy brought about by the Government can benefit the livelihood of artists and musicians as everyone else. Beyond that, the Bill does much to promote and sustain what is creative. On the whole, I support the Bill. However, there is one glaring omission to which many right hon. and hon. Members have referred. There are no royalties or levies on blank tapes. I hope that we can put that right and I want to explain why.
At live performances, musicians or actors in essence sell their work through the agency of a theatre or concert hall to an audience who pay for their seats. That is a free bargain between the artist and audience. With modern technology, the performance can be recorded on discs, films or tapes which can be sold to individuals or the media. That, again, is a free bargain between the artist and the audience. However, that professional recording can be poached and put on to a cheap blank tape which can be purchased for £1. That is not a fair or free bargain. That is stealing someone's professional work. It is close to theft. It is an injustice which the House should not countenance. Nor should we gloss over it; because only the Government and Parliament can take effective action to remedy that injustice.
That point was made in the White Paper in 1986, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) referred extensively. I will not read the whole of that passage from White Paper again, but part of it states:
After giving full and careful consideration to all the opinions expressed in response to the 1985 Green Paper, the Government has concluded that:

(a) copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material and performances by those who tape them at home to the prejudice of the legitimate interests of the copyright owners;
(b) there is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tape as a means of providing such remuneration.
That was the Government policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, at a press conference in 1986 and that view was constantly and frequently repeated.
I received a letter in November 1986 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the then Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government in which he stated:
The Government remain committed to the proposals for legislation on intellectual property as set out in the White Paper on Intellectual Property and Innovation. I can assure you that we have not dropped the proposals for a blank tape levy and the necessary legislation will be introduced when the Parliamentary timetable permits.
Our policy was consistent with the European trends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton listed those countries in Europe with similar views. All Common Market countries have brought in a scheme for such a levy or are bringing one in except Britain, Ireland and Greece. It is possible that we shall have to introduce such a scheme anyway before long, so we may as well get on with it now.
In West Germany the levy money is distributed 42 per cent. to composers, 42 per cent. to performers and producers and 16 per cent. to literary authors or the


equivalent. Another form of distribution exists in France. The levy money can be distributed fairly and equitably and in accordance with the type of scheme run by the Performing Right Society. The administrative costs of such a scheme should obviously be financed from the scheme. The beneficiaries of the scheme would have a strong incentive to ensure that its administration was economical. That is the answer to those who complain about the likely administrative costs.
All the blank tapes used in this country are manufactured abroad—60 per cent. come from Japan, and 40 per cent. from West Germany. The manufacturers of blank tapes in Germany can hardly be surprised if we put a levy on them, because the West Germans already have a levy on their blank tapes.
The proposed levy is 10 per cent. which is 10p on a £1 blank tape. Thanks to our growing prosperity, a 10p charge is no hardship for anyone, not even the young. It is a third of the price of a cup of coffee in a third class café. By no stretch of the imagination could it be called, as my right hon. and learned Friend described it, an unfair burden.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of administration in West Germany is approximately 7 per cent.? That figure might be of interest to those hon. Members who are concerned about what they perceive as high administrative costs. That 7 per cent. seems admirable.

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not know that figure, but I expect that he is right, and I have no reason to doubt it.
The 10p might even be absorbed by the producers, as has happened with petrol tax increases, but if not, the levy would not be burdensome, even to blind people. Everyone wants to help blind people. One person in 300 is registered as blind or partially sighted. I am told that the average person buys eight blank tapes a year, and even if blind people buy twice that many—16 a year—at a 10p levy, that would be £1·60 a year, or 3p a week. Therefore, I do not believe it is right to use the position of blind people to stir up emotion against the proposal. I do not believe that the blind, of all people, would wish to stand in the way of actors, composers and musicians receiving a fair reward for what they have produced, merely to save that 3p per head per week each. In any case, there is every reason to think that the music industry would help. The reference to the blind is something of a red herring and the argument has been abused.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to rough justice. I am told that 85 to 90 per cent. of blank tapes are used to copy copyright material, almost entirely music. After all, not many people want to buy blank tapes to record the speeches of hon. Members. Yes, the levy is rough justice, but so are local authority rates and so will community charges be if we have them. Those local charges are or will be imposed regardless of the unequal use that people make or will make of education, local road repairs or the other services of local authorities. Everybody understands that point; nobody minds it. The same would apply to the rough justice of the levy on blank tapes. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the benefit should go mainly to the performers—I could not agree more—and that could be done along the lines of the West German example.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has to deal with many major matters of crucial importance to the future of our national prosperity. He said in the other place that the arguments on the tape levy were finely balanced. It is no disrespect to him to say that it is not self-evident that his proposals are more authentic than those of his immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who had previous experience for some years as Minister for the Arts, and was thereby steeped in the needs of the musical world. I profoundly believe that the 1986 White Paper is right, and I hope that the Government will listen, heed the arguments and think again.

Mr. William Powell: Those right hon. and hon. Members who have waded through the hundreds of clauses and the various schedules of the Bill and reached the last page will notice among the repeal list that the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985 is to be repealed in full. For most hon. Members, and most members of the public, consigning this statute to the footnotes of history will be of very little moment. For me, it is a matter of considerable importance, because I was the promoter of that Act. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), have referred to the effect of that statute, which was intended to be a stopgap measure. It has been wholly beneficial to the industry. This Bill will take over from where we left off, and I shall come on to endorse a point made by my hon. Friend in relation to clause 17(2).
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), in his important contribution, said that there was an atmosphere of déja vu about this debate. Those of us who, on those various Fridays in 1985, went through the debates on my Act will have that sense of déja vu. I am sure that the knowledge that I spoke for over an hour on the Second Reading debate has had an important deterrent effect on today's debate. I have no doubt that the fear that I might do likewise tonight has concentrated minds marvellously.
I am able to make a very different speech now at quarter to nine in the evening than I would have done if I had had the opportunity of occupying the Floor for an hour or more. I hope that that will come as a relief to hon. Members. I merely want to reflect on the important themes that I stressed then and that are of importance now, not just for the Bill but for the computer software industry. The first relates to enforcement and the second to a much wider interest in computer software and education.
Let me deal firstly with enforcement. The powers in the Bill are not sufficient to ensure the proper enforcement of the proposed law, certainly as far as it affects the computer software industry. In 1985 I told the House how we would try to ensure that my Bill, if it became an Act of Parliament, would be enforced. I am delighted to say that FAST—the Federation Against Software Theft—established a law enforcement agency under a former senior police officer in the Metropolitan police, Mr. Bob Hay, and it has had considerable success, both in practical and deterrent terms, in reducing the level of piracy in the computer software industry.
The current estimates are that FAST, through Mr. Hay's office, is reducing the level of software piracy by at


least £50 million a year and that is a fairly substantial achievement for what was intended to be a modest, stopgap measure. However, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West has given, I am afraid that the Bill, as it is currently drafted in clause 17(2), does not produce any important amendment to section 2 of my Act. I shall be doing all that I can to ensure that the matter that my hon. Friend raised—I do not need to go into it in full at this stage—is fully reproduced in this statute and that a program stored within a computer is as fully protected as anything that has been produced from a computer.
The presumptions need to be fully thought out. When the Bill was originally produced in the other place, there was a presumption of subsistence and ownership of copyright. During the course of the exhaustive Committee stage that the Bill underwent in the other place, that part of the Bill was taken out. However, it must be put back again. If it is to be necessary for the victim of new software piracy to establish the presumption that exists at the moment, it will cost vast sums in solicitors' fees, and so on, to bring the necessary proof to court. One of the things that we were able to do in 1985 was to prevent that. If we can save the authors of copyrights from these wholly unnecessary legal costs, we must do so. If we cannot restore what was removed in the other place, it will cost tens of thousands of pounds.
It is important to establish that trading standards officers have a role in the enforcement of this law. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) spoke about that earlier. In some ways, trading standards officers have a more important role than that of the police. Importation of pirated software is a major issue, and, although the Government take the view that Customs officers are not yet equipped to deal with this, the statute must extend the powers of the Customs, if necessary by delegated legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) said that the introduction of private Member's legislation is not a satisfactory way of dealing with problems as they arise. Hon. Members have stressed that many problems will arise in the next 10, 15 or 20 years during the currency of this statute, and none of us has any idea of what they will be. In 1985 the computer software industry faced the most enormous difficulties because of the pirating of its products and there was a gaping hole in law enforcement. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of goods were at risk and many authors lost the opportunity to profit from their work and from everything that went with it. The software industry had to rely on the lottery of the private Member's ballot and had to hope that somebody would be prepared to take up the cause. That is a most unsatisfactory way to deal with such matters.
The film industry was particularly at risk in 1983 when the measure introduced by Lord Eden of Winton, as he now is, was almost lost in the hasty deals that had to be made because Parliament was being dissolved for the coming general election. That is no way to treat our important industries and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will seriously consider the point that was made with considerable force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton.
I do not have time to develop the important points that I would like to make about education and the computer software industry. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity to deal with those matters in the Standing Committee. I welcome the Bill. It is a question of striking balances on a wide range of complicated issues about which the arguments are never all in one direction. As a result of considerable consultation and the tremendous efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors the Government have got the Bill very nearly right. However, we shall have to look at some matters and I shall reserve my detailed contributions for later debates.

Mr. Tim Janman: Before speaking about the Bill I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I think that he not too seriously chided my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for a Bill that he said went against the Government's free market and capitalist principles and was in some ways interventionist. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that he would agree that not only is the invisible hand of the market one of the cornerstones of capitalism or classical liberalism—call it what we will—but that another buttress of classical liberalism and a capitalist society is property and the right to own it and defend it. That does not mean only physical property, such as buildings, but obviously means intellectual property. I am sure that if Adam Smith were alive today he would not have intellectual conflict between the sort of society and economic system that he would support and this Bill.
It is refreshing to see the Government bring forward a Bill that updates and prepares for the 1990s the area of intellectual property rights. I welcome the Government's refusal to support the tape lobby's proposals to legitimise home copying. The United Kingdom is the home of a growing and profitable software industry. Any legislation that fosters the expectation that the purchase of some recording medium, such as a magnetic tape or disc, can automatically confer the right to copy a third party's information without the owner's permission must weaken the opportunities for our software industry to develop and market its products. To United Kingdom software houses, a tape levy would encourage theft of property—in this case intellectual property.
My first concern about the Bill was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) who spoke about the effect of registered design on small businesses. On any product there are many new features with many new designs related to them. My understanding is that under the Bill all these new designs would have to be registered. That would be very costly and bureaucratic for small businesses. The current copyright law would give those designs automatic protection. This would particularly hit small businesses in, for example, textiles, clothes, jewellery, carpeting and crockery. Young fashion designers would be exposed to not being able to bear the costs of registering their designs and would be defenceless against copiers.
My main concern about the Bill relates to the "must match, must fit" clauses because they will weaken the incentives for British companies to innovate. They will set the United Kingdom apart from all the major industrialised nations in the Economic Community at a


time when we are moving towards 1992 and harmonisation. The Bill excludes from all protection many products which are not spare parts and which could be freely copied. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke listed many of those products, such as hi-fi, vacuum cleaners, television sets and castings for personal computers. The "must fit" clause could have some unfortunate ramifications for toy companies such as Lego and Meccano, which depend on interlocking designs—as do prefabricated housing systems. In both instances—and there are others—protection will be lost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke rightly mentioned that the "must match" clause encompasses every type of product casing formed from two or more pieces. Presumably, vacuum cleaners, typewriters, hi-fi components, tea pots and personal computer casings will come under the clause.
I now refer to some of the assumptions that the Government have made in putting forward the clause. They have assumed that the "must match" exception clause will benefit consumers through lower prices. In fact, copiers widely copy only those parts that are most required. They do not copy less commonly required spare parts. In the motor industry that would include body panels for aged car models, which would normally be owned by people on lower incomes. Prices would have to be put up, because the original equipment manufacturer would compensate for loss of margins on the more commonly copied body panels by upping his prices for those that only he would still make available to the market place.
There is an assumption that the "must match" exception clause will increase competition and consumer choice. When a consumer buys a vehicle, when he chooses which manufacturer to go to, one criterion is the availability, quality and cost of spare parts that the original equipment manufacturer produces. Although I am a keen advocate of competition, I fear that the "must match" exception clause takes the theory of competition to rather esoteric lengths.
The next assumption inherent in the "must match" exception clause is that current manufacturers are ripping off the consumer. That is not a fair assumption. For example, in 1986 the Ford Motor Company's return on all sheet metal parts was only 3·6 per cent. That is hardly a huge margin. The clause will put us out of step with the rest of the Common Market. It will prevent us from creating a common market in that respect. For example, in every industrialised country in the European Community there is a 15-year protection for spare parts such as car body panels. Because of that, the clause will do nothing to aid employment in the motor industry.
Currently, most copying is done by body panel manufacturers in Taiwan, Spain and Italy. Because of the protection that will continue to exist in the European Community, it will not be possible for British copiers, who, at the moment, are mainly merely importers, to have any market for which to compete. Therefore, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the clause will do nothing to aid the motor industry or jobs within it.
The other flaw in the "must match" exception clause is the assumption that there will be a direct link between its effects and the consumer. Any differential in price between a body panel from an original equipment manufacturer in the motor industry and that from a copier is absorbed by

the repairer in the body shop that is doing the repair work. The consumer rarely knows what the price differential is. He or she rarely knows whether the body panel being fitted to their vehicle was manufactured by the original manufacturer or by a counterfeiter. Therefore, the assumptions in the Bill do not apply.
I am aware that time is pressing on, so I shall curtail my remarks. The "must match" clause will seriously undermine industry's ability to fund innovative design and engineering, which are vital to this country's competitive position. But one should not criticise the "must match" exception clause without putting forward an alternative constructive solution. My solution would be to allow the copyright tribunal to hear and resolve cases of monopoly abuse of articles covered by design copyright—for instance, motor car spare parts. If original equipment manufacturers abuse what could be seen to be their monopoly position in the market place, the copyright tribunal could award compulsory licences to other manufacturers who are willing to make the same body panels and make them available in the market place. That would be similar to the precedent of the powers of the patent comptroller under the Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986.
I have concentrated on a certain aspect of the Bill, the "must match" exception clause and the "must fit" exception clause. It may appear that I have been critical. I have doubts and concerns about those aspects of the Bill. Because of its complexity and breadth, many hon. Members have voiced concerns about some aspects and clauses of the Bill. However I believe that there is strong support on both sides of the House for the majority of the objectives that the Government seek to achieve. I look forward to serving on the Standing Committee arid continuing to support the Government in bringing forward the Bill.

Mr. Simon Coombs: There are times when it seems that a Back Bencher's speech must be like a pair of bellows. It expands to take account of the green acres opposite graced only by the Three Musketeers—the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Then. as one looks at one's own Benches and sees the eager faces all around, it contracts again to what one might describe as a Whip's allowance.
This is a big and very complicated Bill and we shall deal with it in Committee. I want to highlight three aspects in which I have a constituency interest. Many of my constituents are employed by a trio of industries which are affected by the legislation that we are taking on its first stage through the House tonight.
First, I want to refer to the pharmaceutical industry. It is absolutely right that we should establish throughout the Bill the value of the right to copy. If the Government seek to encourage competition, an open market, the transfer of the property right must reflect its value. A pharmaceutical company, which needs a return on a product to fund future research and development, must obtain appropriate value before the surrender of that right. The pharmaceutical industry in 1988 is truly international. That means that it could and would migrate if a 20-year patent life were not


granted to it. I welcome the fact that the Government propose to return to the status quo of 1978 to restore that balance to the industry.
There is also a spare parts industry in Swindon. It is in a different situation. The industry covers not just motor car spare parts, as many would think, but domestic appliances, industrial, agricultural and garden machinery, office equipment and electrical equipment. In fact, 400,000 jobs or more in this industry are affected by the Bill.
The proposed unregistered design right includes spare parts and draws them into an author monopoly of 15 years' duration. The Government have drastically altered the balance between spare parts manufacturers and orignators of the product, and either spare parts should be exempt or the value of the right should be established clearly and it should be sold.
The third area that I want to discuss tonight has been referred to often in the debate today. It is the question of what we do about the music industry. The concept of value is most significant when copying is undetectable, unpreventable and effectively unpunishable. If the owner of the copyright cannot enforce it, he has, in my view, the right to redress, to compensation.
For the music industry this problem is a serious one. Home taping is widespread. Many hon. Members have referred to this situation. More than 80 million tapes were used last year to copy music illegally. Now, coming over the horizon we have compact disc and digital audio tape. These will soon replace the records and cassettes of today. The technology will move on and every home taper will become a potential commercial pirate. The quality of the new materials is such that piracy in the home becomes a possibility, not just piracy in terms of imports from abroad. The existing £700 million a year haemorrhage from the record industry will not only continue but worsen. One should take note of a British industry that can export £400 million worth of goods every year and reflect that maybe it might be in the interests of Government and Parliament to look after it. I did not say protect it; I said look after it. Its export earnings makes the record industry one of the best in this country, and its problems will be multiplied several times over if we do not find a way in this legislation of guarding against the worsening problem of home taping.
Will the Government continue to wash their hands and say, "Copyright is all very well but if you cannot enforce it there is nothing else we are prepared to do"? The Government have agreed to royalties, licences of right and several other ways of recognising that an author and originator of intellectual property has a right to a return on what he has created. It cannot be right that one industry should be singled out for separate treatment that says, "Yes, you have that right, but no, we are not prepared to help you to enforce it."
I do not accept the argument of Ministers that it is too difficult to collect a royalty from those who infringe with home taping. It is a simple matter to collect from source, from the manufacturers, and to distribute through one of the existing collecting societies. The idea expressed by the Secretary of State in another place that a half or a quarter of the income from the collection of a levy would be lost

in administration is simply wrong. The figure of 7 per cent. in West Germany gives us a guide to what the true level of administration costs could be.
The question of rough justice has been advanced as a reason for not proceeding with a royalty or levy. I follow other hon. Members in saying that we have many examples in our society of rough justice. Anyone who pays rates but is not a parent loses out because two thirds will go on the cost of local education. Anyone who pays his gas and electricity bills on time will lose out because the bills will be higher than they need have been if all fellow citizens had taken the trouble to pay their bills on time. The whole of our society is littered with examples of rough justice and it is not good enough to say that this industry should be left at the mercy of copyright infringers because an element of rough justice is involved in collecting the levy.
A levy is not a tax; it is an exchange of value from the user to the originator of copyright. The Government merely create the circumstances in which fair play can take place. Just as they set up the legal system to ensure that theft can be punished, so they are capable of creating a position where this type of theft, and it is theft, can be dealt with in a way that is fair to the person who is aggrieved.
The Committee must return to the question how Parliament should defend a great British industry which is under severe attack. In that respect I welcome the announcement of my right hon. and learned Friend that moves to restrict the rental rights are to be introduced in Committee. Obviously, that is the right way to proceed and it will receive warm support from all who have spoken tonight. But that is only part of the problem. In Committee, we must look for a new initiative from the Government. Those who hope to serve on the Committee will want to support the Government in that, because they recognise that the situation cannot be left intact.
I welcome the Bill which is much needed. After 32 years it is time for a good overhaul, just as two years ago we argued that the Shops Act 1950 was due for an overhaul, and still is. I hope that we can move forward without controversy to put the whole question of copyright, patents and designs on a modern and forward-looking footing—forward-looking because the technology will move on quickly from now. We must also look outwards to the EEC. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) pointed out so effectively, the EEC will bring to bear upon us precisely the format which we must achieve if we are to reflect harmonisation in 1992. We cannot afford to be insular in the way in which we tackle the problems that must be addressed in this Bill.
On the basis that the Government are forward-looking, I have the happy task of saying that the House should support the Bill.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for compressing their speeches and to the Opposition Front Bench for allowing the last of the contributors to speak.
The provision introduced in another place to extend for ever the copyright on Peter Pan has certainly captured the public imagination. I trust that is not because the public regard Parliament as a pantomime!
The importance of the Bill has been stressed by every speaker. Many hon. Members said, and I agree, that the


Government have fought hard to achieve a successful balance between protection of the intellectual property of an originator, which is so important to our society, and a fair degree of competition. In this they have succeeded.
I particularly welcome a measure that will affect my constituency, the lifting of "licence of right" relating to the last four years of the copyright for the pharmaceutical industry. Effectively, the change will mean that pharmaceutical companies will have the benefit of the last eight years of the 20 years during which they have a guaranteed monopoly, whereas previously they had only four years out of 16. The first 12 years is typically taken up by development. I know that the change will make a big difference to them.
With regard to the blank tape levy issue, which has come up time and again, I cannot help thinking that the figures are disproportionate. We are told that this is one of the biggest industries in the country. Some people have produced incredible figures. One speaker talked of £ 15,000 million and another mentioned £20,000 million, whereas for the recovery from blank tapes we are talking of perhaps £9 million. There must be a simpler method to deal with the problem, if we decide eventually that it is getting out of hand, than a levy on every tape with the hassles involved, such as rebates to special groups such as the blind.
In the main, I welcome the Bill; it is very important. I wanted to speak in the debate—I volunteered for the Standing Committee, and I hope that the Committee of Selection will consider me as there is nothing wrong with volunteering occasionally—because clause 224, which deals with Crown user right, and clause 151, which deals with first ownership of new design rights, run against the balance in the rest of the Bill. They do so because they represent a serious threat to some sectors of research and development in this country.
I believe strongly that the Government have got the economy on its feet in a permanent and sustainable way, but I am worried about the amount of research and development in the private sector, which is still far too low.
Private sector research and development in the United Kingdom is only 1·1 per cent. of GDP, as against 1·4 per cent. in the United States, 1·6 per cent. in West Germany and 1·9 per cent. in Japan. I shall explain why the two clauses might prevent our figure from improving. Clause 224 gives to the Government Crown user rights that amount to confiscation. As it stands, the clause does not distinguish clearly between background and foreground information. It affects a Crown supplier such as a defence supplier—there are other types of Crown supplier, but defence is by far the biggest category—that has been commissioned to do a particular job and paid to develop a certain piece of equipment, however much background information may have been brought to the table.
Perhaps the company has included components developed at its own cost. It will almost certainly mean that there will be considerable know-how invested in the process. With many defence contracts, it is probable that even if the development was commissioned by the Government. a large proportion of its cost, as well as the cost of the parts brought to the table, has been paid for by the company. In many cases it is as much as half.
If the clause is not amended, the Ministry of Defence or one of the other Departments will be able to say, "We commissioned that, so, now that it has been developed, it is our property and we shall be able to hand it out to open

competitive tender for the first production batch." The effect will be simple. In the short term, it will save the taxpayer a great deal of money. In the long term, it will ensure that in a generation's time we are importing most of our defence equipment. The people who will tender the lowest price for production contracts, if they are not let in the first phase to designers—subject to reasonable terms—will be companies that do not have the embarrassment of research and development overheads.
Clause 151 is parallel to that. It deals with first ownership of new design rights on a wider basis, outside Government suppliers. It is liable particularly to affect small companies.
I echo the warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Like him, I shall seek to discuss those two clauses in Committee——

Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman gets on the Committee.

Mr. Brazier: That is right.
I should like to illustrate the depth of the problem with a story, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). In 1937, Frank Whittle tried to get a contract from the Air Ministry to develop what appeared to be a sound scheme. In fact, it was the first ever jet engine. Only one organisation, the Royal Air Force, saw any merit in it. Finally, the RAF managed to persuade the Air Ministry to agree to it. The Treasury managed to sabotage the project through continually cutting off funds. Nevertheless, largely through private money, Frank Whittle drove through the scheme to the point at which, in 1943, he had more or less developed the jet engine. As a war was on, his design rights were confiscated and handed over to some American companies and two other British companies and his company was nearly shot from under him. Obviously, what one does in war is different from what one does in peacetime, but that is an illustration, in an extreme case, of what could happen if those two clauses are not examined carefully and amended in Committee.
This is a good Bill, which looks into a large number of different areas of this important subject. In all the areas except the one that I identified, it is a positive Bill. I am glad to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Tony Blair: This has been an interesting and full debate. It was opened by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who spoke with all the enthusiasm and vim of those who know that their involvement with the Bill will be concluded with its Second Reading.
The Bill is a parliamentarian's nightmare. It is horribly complex and undeniably important and does not even have the spice of acute party controversy. That complexity is compounded by what my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to as the tremendous conflicts of interest that arise throughout the Bill. Not merely are we faced with competing claims, but many of them occur within a legitimate area of disagreement, so that we have problems of judgment added to those of complexity.
We shall judge the Bill according to those criteria. The Bill should take account of advances in technology. It


should correct outstanding anomalies and clarify previously disparate and complex legislation it should bring us into line as far as possible with our international treaty obligations, particularly the Berne convention. It should attempt to hold sway fairly between the competing claims of the artist, the entrepreneur and the consuming public, and between rewarding investment and protecting consumers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) told us about the Bill's long gestation. There are probably two reasons for that. First, many of the problems seem virtually intractable. That is why we had not only the Whitford report of more than a decade ago, but three Green Papers and a recent White Paper. Each reached different conclusions from its predecessor and I suspect that the Bill will be amended substantially before it is passed. Secondly, although we are dealing mainly with copyright, other aspects of intellectual property such as patents, registered designs and trade marks impinge on that and overlap each other so that it is sometimes difficult to separate what is properly copyright from patent or design legislation.
There is further difficulty with copyright. New technology has brought so many changes and advances that we now have a whole range of problems that were virtually unimaginable 20 years ago and in some cases only five years ago. What H. G. Wells would have thought of as science fiction we think of as part of our ordinary home furniture.
Further pressures arise from the completion of the internal market in 1992 and the pressing need to ensure that, so far as possible, we come into line with Europe so we can compete on equal terms.
Copyright law faces a further critical problem. Copyright was developed first to protect artistic works and the creativity of artists. Almost immediately, however, those who were commercialising the creative work of artists also required protection for the investment that they undertook. The question then arose what to do about industrial functional design, which is not within the rubric of registered designs, because it is wholly functional, but in which investment is obviously required and which therefore requires some protection in law. The difficulty is that one can ask why copyright protection for investment in functional articles is any different from copyright protection for articles of artistic work. In other words, why should copyright law be any different for the record and for the car exhaust?
Here I agree with the Government in identifying the problem. With a functional item that should have its design protected because of the investment required but which the consumer is necessarily obliged to use because of its nature there is the danger of a misuse of the monopoly position of those who have designed the article. In principle, the functional article should be no different from the artistic work, but in practice it plainly is because of the possibility of abuse of monopoly.
The Bill is necessary to clear up issues of technological advance, to bring us into line with our treaty obligations and to meet the particularly difficult problems raised by the issue of industrial design. Therefore, we ask not

whether the principle of the Bill is wrong but whether the Government have got the practical details right in relation to the difficulties to which I referred.
I shall deal with several key issues—first, the blank tape levy. Although the blank tape levy is important to the music industry in one sense, it is not of huge financial importance; it would bring the industry £6 million or £7 million a year. The music industry is justified in saying that an important principle is involved. At present, blank tapes are used extensively for home taping of copyright material. We know and accept that. It is in theory unlawful to do it; therefore, in theory, at least, the law is being broken on a fairly wide scale. A rational choice, and the choice faced up to by the White Paper, was either to make home taping lawful and to provide compensation for the copying. or to make it lawful and to provide no compensation.
What was not envisaged was that Parliament should consider the matter, aware that home taping is happening and that it is unlawful, and leave the law unaltered and abused. The Bill cannot go through as it is. Because it does not make home taping lawful, it accepts the justice of the claim that there should be copyright protection given to home taping, but it does not give any practical means of enforcement or any means of compensating for the unlawful action. That is an unjustifiable way of approaching the matter. We cannot say that the claim is justified, accept that there is no proper means of enforcing the law and then leave the law in its present unsatisfactory state.
Some of the objections to the blank tape royalty are specious. It has been said that the administrative cost of collecting and distributing the levy would be enormous. An analogy has been drawn with public lending rights and performing rights. The major difference is that the blank tape levy would operate within a narrow compass. Only a certain number of firms bring blank tape into the country. In West Germany, where there is such a system, the administrative costs amount to only about 7 per cent. of the money raised. Therefore, that is not a valid objection.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that most consumers who have respect for the creators of work accept that there should be compensation for the use of copyright material. When we examine again the proposal for a blank tape royalty within the context of the unsatisfactory nature of the law, we will be driven logically to adopt the view that there should be compensation for the abuse of copyright.
The White Paper originally made no provision for rental rights. Although that White Paper was published only two years ago, the Government said that they were not sure that rental rights required protection. The almost universal view that has emerged from today's debate is that rental rights should have protection. In other words, the position adopted by the White Paper that there should be no copyright protection of rentals has, by consensus, almost been rejected. Therefore, the question is whether in providing a rental right we are providing an effective right.
It all depends on the nature of the industry. The video film industry, for example, may be happy with one year. That is a fairly easy period for it to live with. However, if we consider those who produce, for example, the compact discs, which will last for a considerable time, or more especially those who produce computer software, it is extremely difficult to argue that the one-year rental period is a satisfactory method of protecting the investment.

Mr. William Powell: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point, but he understates it. The truth of the matter is that the situation would be impossible for the computer software industry if the provision stood, because if protection was limited to only one year there would be no point in computer software developers even setting about their work.

Mr. Blair: I do not disagree with that point, but that is the limit of the protection given at present. I am saying that we have accepted that a rental right must exist. However, we have failed so far to face up to what that means in terms of giving adequate rental protection.
I spoke earlier about striking the right balance between the interests of industry and the consumer. Most people looking particularly at the computer industry, but also at the record industry and the potential for hiring out compact discs, would not think that that balance has been struck correctly in relation to rental rights. That also may need changing.
Further, there are the fair dealing provisions, where, if there is fair dealing in copying for the purposes of research or study, there is exemption from copyright infringement. Two problems arise on that. First, the Government have decided—so far at least—that there should be no payment by industry for copies of publications done for commercial research. I understand that the publishers have come back to the Government with a scheme, which is at least worth looking at, for some form of compensation to the authors of publications that are copied. We have not taken a position on that at this stage, but we shall have to look at it during the passage of the Bill.
I point out too that, as far as I am aware, the United States has the Coypright Clearance Centre which is its attempt to deal with the problem, and apparently it is working.
There is also the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Cunninghame, North about photographers. I have not yet heard the explanation for the proposal that photographers should lose any copyright protection when their work is used for the reporting of current events. One thing that photographers are concerned to do, which is essential to their commercial livelihood, is to have their photograpahs used either for news reels or newpapers for the reporting of current events. At the very least, we deserve an explanation of why they should lose any protection, on the basis of fair dealing, when such photographs are taken.
There are also problems associated with the conflict of copyright between the creator of the work and those commercialising it or particularly between journalists and newspaper proprietors. That point was raised passionately by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). It was a good trade union speech which shed an entirely new light on the hon. Gentleman. The point that he was making was about the inequality of bargaining power between the creator and the commercialiser of the work. That is the aspect which one must decide when considering which part of the copyright should take precedence.
The essential question is what one is attempting to compensate for when the rights of journalists and newspaper proprietors, or of artists and the record industry, conflict. It is important to realise that the economic bargaining power will, on the whole, rest with the commercialisers rather than with the creators.

Contracts can alter any of these provisions—parties can agree to do something quite different from what the law lays down. They can, by contract, abstain from any of the rights that they have. In those circumstances, it seems all the more important that the correct balance is struck, both on copyright and on moral right. I am not certain that that balance has been correctly achieved. There are also the difficulties of establishing the copyright tribunal. They, too, will have to be examined.
I want to deal with the thorny issue of design rights. I agree that not all design of functional articles can be given protection, because of the danger of monopoly. In drawing the line we must take account of the investment being rewarded and the choice of the consumer—those are the competing claims. The Government propose that when the consumer must purchase an article that fits or matches the rest of a larger design there should be no protection. The problem is that it is irrational to discount investment only on that basis. In other words, to draw the line between protecting investment and the consumer by reference to a definition of design does not seem correct, because there may be a design that must fit and match but which has involved a huge amount of investment and should therefore be protected. That has been obscured, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out, by the obsession with car spare parts, but the problem is much broader than that. We should deal with the root of the problem—the fear of a lack of competition if monopoly power is abused—and that can be dealt with in a different way from that which the Government propose.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: I am just about to sit down.
The Bill has many good parts and is a worthy effort. However, I still think that when it meets difficult problems it shakes them by the hand and walks away from them. We cannot afford to do that in Committee. We must ensure that this is a Bill for the future which stimulates our artists and enriches our consumers, while safeguarding our industry. That is our task in Committee. While we agree with the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, we reserve our position on its practical application.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rightly surmised that the Government are not walking away from the issues in the Bill. There are those who are alarmed by the prospect of the Government walking remorselessly towards about 25 issues of a complex and sometimes highly contentious nature. Some would say it would be better to wait for the Common Market to bring forward its view, or to allow certain ambiguities to continue which industry and industrial property rights owners could not have tolerated.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made a powerful observation: that at the most conservative estimate about 2·6 per cent. of GDP is in the business of intellectual property; and its exploitation is an equally significant economic activity. He raised a number of interesting points about the need for interventionism, or otherwise, in markets. An example from the business of information shows how liberalism has undoubtedly delivered immense benefits to consumers and protected the


rights of intellectual property owners. In London there are now about 2,500 companies operating what are called value-added data or network services—they sell information internationally. Until this Government liberalised that market four or five years ago, there were none. So, from a standing start, liberalisation of a market, while protecting the rights of the providers of information, has provided an immense amount of employment and income for the United Kingdom. It is my earnest hope that what we have done will make London into a centre that will match those of New York and Tokyo in the exchange of information, just as those three centres are now world centres of the exchange of financial services and stocks and shares. We believe that intervention in markets is justified only to the extent that it makes them work better.
I hope that hon. Members will have noticed that there is surety and clarity in the majority of issues tackled in the Bill and most of those markets work better where there is such surety and clarity. We are helping the market by providing that long overdue recodification or updating of the law.
The hon. Member for Dagenham mentioned the example of the music industry. Is that industry suffering from an impure or defective market? Is the industry not dynamic? The hon. Gentlemen said that the sales figures of record companies are healthy. We are talking about £400 million worth of overseas earnings. If we introduce a levy, will it help the market to work better or provide compensation to the owners of rights in the original work to the extent that they would be stimulated even further to improve the quality and volume of the products coming on to the market? That is a central question. Certainly the Government would argue that the introduction of a levy would not necessarily introduce a better choice for consumers and would, at best, perhaps be neutral in terms of the amount of work produced by creative people.
I am sure that all Conservative Members will join me in acknowledging the care and professionalism over many years of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) in respect of the issues that we are discussing today. He is, to some extent, the architect of some of the new provisions and I recognise his logic when he argues that we should be careful about the use of terminology. He is correct in saying that, by using literary analogies all the time, we can sometimes cloud the issue, particularly in the high technology, computer and electronics areas. I wish to reassure my right hon. Friend that we shall be vigilant in Committee in the terminology that we use. We shall be particularly vigilant in applying the correct terminology to computer media input and output and we shall not hide behind the blanket phrase, as he fears, or use non-specific language.
I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his support on the "must fit" and "must match" question and I hope that he will follow closely the arguments in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) may have surmised from the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that issue is subject to further discussion and I shall be meeting people in the next fortnight to further those discussions.
I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) to get the Community Trade Marks Office moved to London. He and I are at one in that regard. London is ideally suited to provide the services required of the CTMO and my hon. Friend's long-standing interest and expertise in those matters will be a valuable aid in achieving what we hope will be a favourable result.
En passant, the design right is automatic and does not have to be registered. The designs that must be registered are the non-functional and aesthetic designs.
On the question of the word processor, under "must fit" and "must match", the male and female parts of the plugs which a keyboard would require to connect into a word processor must fit and must match. I believe that I have correctly interpreted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. Anyone who simply copied a keyboard would be caught by the usual terms on copying. However, that is a good illustration and one that we should explore in Committee.
I know that the computer industry and one or two other industries feel that they have been left out of the "must fit" and "must match" argument; that it has all been dominated by the motor industry. That is not the case. We have thought the matter through and as we examine the provisions in greater detail we may be able to reassure those hon. Members who are anxious about the white goods industry or indeed the computer industry or lifestyle products that this methodology translate across.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) made a charming speech. He has probably had to head north to look after his constituents. I agree with him when he says that this is an overdue restatement and codification of intellectual property. Its timing is about right.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) talked about the balance of interest between the designer and the user. He said that he was looking forward to the Committee stage, from which I assume that he will be serving on the Committee. I look forward to his contributions. Some hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the rich challenges that lie in the Bill see its Committee stage as a parliamentary equivalent of the Gulag. I can assure my hon. Friends that that will not be so. With our hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in the chair, this will be a stimulating, lively and rewarding Committee on which to serve.
I recognise the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on computer software, with which I shall try to deal in outline form tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an impassioned plea for the levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has a lot to be thankful for in computer software and his Bill has given us many insights into how to go about protecting it. I shall examine his comments on the powers of enforcement in the Bill, which I understand to be one of the central points of his speech.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) who is also anxious about the "must fit" and "must match" provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), in whose constituency I opened a compact disc factory a few months ago, is understandably anxious about the levy. I can tell the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that we are looking at the rental right. I shall be discussing that with the Copyright Licensing Agency and I agree with him entirely on the


"must fit" and "must match" question. It is difficult and the route that we have taken so far is a design right route. Despite all the people that we have consulted, we cannot find an alternative way to square the two pressures that he so lucidly described. If he were to shout "Eureka" in Committee on discovering some source of wisdom that we have yet to come across, he will do the Committee a great service.
The blank tape levy has dominated a number of contributions. The Government's position is clear. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pointed out that there is an element of rough justice. It was interesting to see that not one of the contributions in favour of the levy addressed the question of rough justice. The argument in the main was that there is rough justice in other methods, or any alternative method, but it is correct for my right hon. and learned Friend and I to point out that there would be a number of "innocent" sufferers from the blanket imposition of a levy—a levy which, incidentally, could be marked up in the retail chain with the result that the burden on the consumer would be considerably more, with those in the retail chain standing to gain almost as much as those for whom the levy was intended. It is for that reason, and others, that we are still determined to press the case against the levy being introduced.

Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend the Minister referred to suffering and burdens. As the levy would be 10p which, as I said, is one third of the price of a cup of coffee in a third class café, it is difficult to imagine that causing any hardship. The average purchaser of blank tapes buys eight a year. He would pay 80p a year. or 1·5p, a week on average.

Mr. Butcher: I remember considering a number of ways to deal with the blind and talking newspapers for the blind. I remember being horrified by the kind of procedures that we would have to adopt to allow blind people to have their levy rebated. Indeed, I was horrified at the paper work that would be involved.
There are different kinds of suffering. We must consider the pure nuisance that would be caused. For the generality of consumers, we must consider the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association which are absolutely steadfast in their opposition to the levy. Those organisations and the House must judge the interests of the consumer. I must wear a consumer affairs hat. On the balance of the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, the case for the levy is not proven.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Butcher: I want to press on. This has been an incredibly complex debate and I want to respond to five other issues.
I want briefly to consider the question of design right. Hon. Members have asked whether the new design right proposed in part III of the Bill is the right way to protect designs. We believe that it is. Copyright is quite inappropriate, not least because, it depends on the existence of an original artistic work, such as a design drawing. That is a highly artificial way of protecting industrial products against copying. Some designs would get no protection at all, because for example, they started

life as a model rather than a drawing. Similarly, registered designs are not the way to protect the vast number of functional designs produced every year.
The registration system works well for aesthetic designs, but they form a limited class of designs intended mainly for consumer goods. The burden that would be placed on industry and on Government resources if every functional design needing protection had to be registered would be very great.
New laws on unfair competition or unfair copying are another possibility referred to by Opposition Members. They would inevitably give rise to an unacceptable level of uncertainty and we will have to investigate that further. On the other hand, design right has many advantages. It is an automatic right which, like copyright, does not depend on registration. It has none of the disadvantages that copyright protection would inevitably produce if it were applied to industrial products. It provides the necessary degree of certainty which is of great importance to industry. We believe that design right is ideally suited for the task of protecting industrial designs.
With regard to spare parts, it has been said that the "must match" exception goes too far or that it would damage original equipment manufacturers. I do not agree that the provision goes too far just because it will allow copying of entire parts. The point is that in certain important areas of the spare parts market the only way to ensure that consumers enjoy the benefit of competition is to allow that type of copying.
We have ensured that the exception operates only when the part is an integral component of a larger design style, body panels being an obvious example. In that area, the consumer frequently needs to replace the part in question and has no choice but to do so with a part of exactly the same shape and appearance. To give a total monopoly over the supply of these spares to the original equipment designer would not, in the Government's view, be desirable.
I have no doubt that there will be many debates in Committee on the practicalities of the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, the Bill has had a long gestation. That long period of consultation and deliberation has been time well spent. The opportunity to revise copyright and design legislation does not occur that often. There have been only two such Acts this century, the Copyright Acts of 1911 and 1956. I detect that the House sees this as a Bill to work on in a non-contentious manner. It is my hope that, in the end, we shall have an excellent Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Maclean.]

COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,


That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenses of the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under the Act; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

WAYS AND MEANS

COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS BILL [LORDS]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the imposition of charges to tax in connection with provisions requiring the deductions of income tax from royalties and other sums paid in respect of the use of designs to persons whose usual place of abode is outside the United Kingdom; and
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Summer Time

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th March.
The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The purpose of the order is to continue for one further year, that is for 1989, the existing arrangements for the starting and ending dates of summer time. It will mean that, as in previous years, summer time will start on the last Sunday in March—26 March—and end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October—29 October. Both the starting and end times—1 am in each case—conform with the fourth directive on summer time of the European Community. All states in the Community, whatever time zone they are in, begin summer time on the same day, but the United Kingdom and Ireland end summer time about a month after the rest of the Community.
The draft order is uncontroversial, as it simply extends existing arrangements until the end of 1989, but there are other issues of which the House will wish to be aware. Because of continuing suggestions that there are benefits to be gained from a change in our arrangements, we have commissioned a substantive survey on summer time. That was announced on 31 March by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The survey seeks a response to the three options identified in a preliminary survey as being the most favoured.
The options are, first, the maintenance of the status quo, secondly, harmonisation of the ending of summer time with the rest of Europe—with the result that we would lose an hour's evening daylight in October—and, thirdly, the adoption of Greenwich mean time plus one hour in the winter, with Greenwich mean time plus two hours in the summer—which for these purposes means between the end of March and the end of September.
The third option would give us an extra hour of afternoon or evening daylight throughout the year. It would also move us into the same time zone as most other countries in western Europe. As a consequence, we would have a common time with them throughout the year.
Therefore, there are two independent issues to be considered in the consultation exercise. One is whether we should end summer time on the same day as the rest of Europe. The second, and quite separate, question is whether we should move into the central European time zone. The latter question is not a matter on which the Community has expressed a view, but it may have advantages for the United Kingdom. We need time to complete and consider the consultation already put in hand. If we decide to legislate we shall need yet more time. It seems inevitable that we shall require the status quo to be extended beyond 1989.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has said that we shall need time to legislate. Given the correspondence that the Select Committee has received and the nature of EC legislation, does he agree that it is no longer within the power of the House to legislate on this matter? The necessary legislation will be enacted in Brussels and Strasbourg. Is not that correct?

Mr. Hogg: It depends very much on our ultimate decisions. We may decide that it would be helpful to adopt the third of the various options that I have outlined. That would need domestic legislation. I did not say that we would legislate. I said, "If we decide to legislate" and the emphasis was on the "if". We are consulting and until we have completed the consultation I do not know, nor can anyone know, what the decision will be. As I say, if we decide to legislate we shall need yet more time. It seems inevitable that we shall require the status quo to be extended beyond 1989. We shall discuss this matter with the European Commission.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has said that he will require the present arrangement to be extended by one year. What is the status of the fourth directive? Is the matter not subject to that?

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend mean the fourth directive or the article?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The fourth directive.

Mr. Hogg: The fourth directive expires at the end of 1989. A further directive will be produced and I expect to see the draft in the middle of the summer. It must be in place by the beginning of next year and that is provided for in the fourth directive. The terms of that directive have not yet been settled, but we should like to see and will press vigorously for an extension of the status quo to achieve the purposes that I have outlined. I have no reason to suppose that the extension will not be forthcoming in the fifth directive.

Mr. Stuart Randall: If it is the intention or one of the options of the Government to delay this whole business, why did they vote for the fourth directive which says quite clearly:
The Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt by 1 January 1989 the arrangements to apply from 1990 onwards"?
How does that square with the delaying option that the Minister has described?

Mr. Hogg: The arrangements provide for a derogation, as they provide for a derogation in the fourth directive that we are discussing. The fact that they seek to make provisos for forthcoming years and to achieve harmonisation does not preclude them from making a derogation in the directives, as they have done in the first, second, third and present directives. My view, for what it is worth, is that we shall have little difficulty in securing a further derogation to maintain the status quo for an extended period which will enable us to form a concluded view about the policy that is best suited to the United Kingdom. Then we can set about the negotiations, discussions and persuasion. It is against that background that I seek the agreement of the House for an extension of the present arrangements. That will enable us to pursue the action that I have outlined.

Mr. Stuart Randall: We have two major papers before us—first, the fourth directive, and, secondly, the Summer Time Order 1988, which extends summer time, to which the Minister has referred. The directive defines the start of summer time for all member states for 1989. Additionally, it defines the end of summer time for 1989 for the United Kingdom, Ireland and all member states. This year, the end of summer time

will be 29 October 1988 for the United Kingdom and Ireland, and 24 September 1988 for other member states. The Summer Time Order 1988 is mainly concerned with the start and end dates of summer time for 1989. Essentially, the order is about extending the existing summer time arrangements for another year while the matter is sorted out. In addition to that, article 5 of the EEC directive states that the EEC Council
shall adopt by 1 January 1989 the arrangements, to apply from 1990 onwards.
The Minister talked about his derogations in dealing with the matter. Bearing in mind that the fourth directive was voted on just before Christmas—only a few weeks ago—and bearing in mind that we have a Christmas break, it seems that the matter that was voted on in Brussels is in complete turmoil. It is quite surprising that it has been turned upside down already.
What is the order about? As the Minister's explanatory memorandum states, it is another attempt by the EEC to harmonise summer time for 1990 onwards. The purposes of the harmonisation have been expressed by various EEC documents—certainly those that I have read—in terms of benefits to transport companies. They have mentioned matters such as timetables and the improvement of trade and communications between member states. But there Is no mention of matters such as the quality of life, reducing the number of road accidents, crime, or the death of children as they go to and from school. As one is inclined to expect from the EEC these days, the motives are purely to do with the internal market.
Frankly, I am not sure about the benefits of harmonisation. I am not sure that we even need it. Of course we want to improve trade between EEC countries—that is obvious. But the order is about balancing the advantages and disadvantages of harmonisation with the advantages and disadvantages of improving the quality of life. I am talking about ensuring that, when they wake up in the morning, people are not in darkness for long periods. That gets worse further north. People in Scotland—particulary in the northern isles of Scotland—experience more darkness and misery than we experience in the south. Harmonisation must take such matters into account.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman define two points for the benefit of the House? First, what exactly does he mean by the misery that is suffered by those in the north that would come from the harmonisation of summer time? Secondly, will he define in precise terms exactly what advantages acrue to the United Kingdom in economic and other terms by being one of the two odd men out of what is an extremely important piece of legislation for this country?

Mr. Randall: Those statements were based on the review of the earlier experiment between 1968 and 1971 and those documents referred to misery because people lived in darkness for long periods. In that sense, it does affect the quality of life, for instance, of elderly people who have to go out, and for mothers who worry about their children. In terms of the economic argument about which the hon. Gentleman asked, I will answer by putting a question to him. Would he like to quantify the benefits of harmonisation? I understand that it is not clear what the benefits would be, so I do not think that his odd-man-out argument stands up. These things cannot be quantified.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to harmonise summer time within the EEC and whether it would bring advantages or disadvantages, will the hon. Gentleman agree that if Parliament is passing over the right to decide by a majority what summer time would be applied throughout Europe, it would be helpful, convenient and constitutional for the House of Commons to be asked whether it wanted to give that power away?

Mr. Randall: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has leapt well ahead; I was coming to that very point a little later in my speech. This is the core of this whole debate and it is a matter that concerns me.
This is a highly emotional matter, and we are already beginning to sense this in the debate. Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but if one reads the record of the earlier debates one sees that it was extraordinary how people reacted to this. It is something about which people feel a great deal of concern and which raises a lot of emotion.
I truly believe that in terms of people who live in the north—and I do not have any interests at all there—it is the responsibility of us all, and particularly those who represent constituencies in the south or not all that far north, such as my own, to make sure that the interests of those in Scotland and the northern parts of England are taken into account.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the issue that is being discussed tonight considerably more narrow than that discussed on previous occasions? Why is the hon. Gentleman so surprised that the European Economic Community should be concerned with economic issues? Does not common sense suggest that to harmonise the dates on which the clocks are changed would be a considerable advantage to those in business who are importing and exporting and rely on railway and airline timetables?

Mr. Randall: Again, I was going to come on to those points, but I want to take up the Minister's points about the options he has presented tonight. I do not want to talk about the economics because, as I have said, they have not been quantified and there is no way of putting any numbers on them. I accept that in terms of trade there would be some advantages. I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that I believe that in making this decision we have to strike the balance between the economic advantages and some of these other advantages, which we can call social advantages, and the direct effects upon the people concerned.
The Minister has referred to three options. I do not believe that we have three real options. First, he said that there would be the no-change option. Fine, we could take that course. The second is the more complicated option to describe; it is what I call the GMT plus one and the GMT plus two, and it means running summer time during winter and double summer time during summer. That is perhaps a shorthand way of describing it, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that.
The third option is to harmonise the end of summer time. I do not believe that that is an option, because it would mean that we would end our summer time at the end of September, and that would be the beginning of winter. I believe that there would be absolute outrage in this country if that were to happen. I believe that we are

down to two options: the first is to do nothing and the second is complete harmonisation—it is the whole lot, and that is what the EEC is after.
What will happen? The Minister has talked about his review. It is due to be completed by 30 June and people will be asked to submit comments, particularly quantitative, on these options. I am not sure what the results will be. We conducted an experiment between 1968 and 1971 and the conclusion was clear: that people did not want continuous summer time because of the effect of dark mornings. The proposal was thrown out of the House by a massive majority. Therefore, we already have good information about attitudes towards continuous summer time.
I am worried that the survey is being carried out by the Government. What do they hope to do with it? I would not accuse them of dishonesty, but we all know how these things can be fiddled and statistics can be played with. I should like to know how comprehensive the survey is. Who has been receiving these questionnaires? I wonder whether we shall see any dramatic change from the results of the earlier trial.

Mr. James Wallace: To return to the question of the economic benefits, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the economic performance of the United States, which has three or four time zones, does not seem to suffer any bad effects? Does he agree that, however committed to the EEC we are, the Community does not rule the laws of geography?

Mr. Randall: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I questioned the benefits of harmonisation, that was certainly an issue that came to the forefront of my mind. It is amazing that the United States can cope in this way, yet we in Europe, which is geographically narrower and smaller, seem to encounter greater problems.
Another matter of great anxiety was the point raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) which is that this fourth directive, which has been approved by the Government——

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not by Parliament.

Mr. Randall: That is true, but it has been approved by the EEC. The directive was based on article 100A of the treaty of Rome. That means that the decision to adopt a 1 January 1989 deadline for establishing the long-term arrangements, those that will operate after 1990, was achieved by majority voting. We did not have a veto. The Government seem to have surrendered their right of veto which existed under article 100. Why did they do that? I cannot for the life of me understand why. It seems to be an act of folly and madness.
We have only two options: full harmonisation or staying as we are. The EEC wants full harmonisation at all costs, irrespective of the consequences. The Government study will be used as the basis for negotiations with the EEC and, obviously, the outcome is uncertain. Moreover, the Government, for all sorts of highly questionable reasons, have agreed to surrender their power of veto by not insisting on article 100. They have sold Britain down the river. They have caved in to EC bureaucrats' desire to harmonise at any cost to this country and irrespective of the feelings of the British people. I am not sure whether it is a cock-up or whether the Government are being seen off by the EEC.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have made a mistake which he might like to correct. The European Community's proposals for harmonisation relate to the end date of summer time, and there has been no suggestion at any time that the United Kingdom should move into the central European time zone.

Mr. Randall: With article 100A, we shall be adopting all the conditions that will prevail after 1990. That is the beginning, the end of it and the whole shooting match. It is worrying that the decision will be made on the basis of article 100A. Indeed, I thought that the Minister was going to intervene on that matter. It means that we shall not have a say in the matter. The EC member States will have no desire to take into account the fact that Scotland and the north of England would prefer not to go for full harmonisation. The views of the House and the people of the country will not be considered because the European Community wants full harmonisation by 1990. I should like to know how we are going to stop this. I cannot see how we can get out of it.
The whole thing is set up so neatly that the people of this country will suffer. It is very worrying. The Government have failed miserably to make sure that the interests of our people are taken into account. The benefits of harmonisation are highly questionable, and are being given greater priority than the quality of life of British people. Money, trade and commerce are all that the Government understand.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government and the EC are correct constitutionally in adopting article 100A of the treaty of Rome in relation to this matter. The Select Committee on European Legislation, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is in his seat tonight, wrote to the Home Secretary asking him why article 100A was adopted in the fourth directive. The Home Secretary said,
If article 100 has in the past been regarded as the proper vehicle, there will not usually be any real likelihood of successfully arguing that article 100A is an improper treaty base.
That is a remarkable answer. The Home Secretary is saying that, as we have used article 100 in the past, article 100A can be used in future and no questions asked.
This is a complex legal point, and I do not intend to go into it. I am sure that the Minister will know that Mr. Speaker's Counsel has questioned what the Home Secretary has done on this matter. I am sure that my hon. friend the Member for Newham, South will deal with the legal aspects if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I must also ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the Government, in commiting themselves to the majority voting arrangements on summer time, have made a constitutional mistake. I am sure that he will have seen a letter to the Select Committee from Mr. Speaker's Counsel.
For those of us who are unhappy about the use of article 100A, which relates to majority voting, will the Minister tell the House what steps if any can be taken to revert to article 100 when voting on the summer time arrangements that will come into operation in 1990? They will be contained in the fifth directive. I should like the Minister to answer that question because it is of the utmost importance, in particular in relation to precedent. As the fourth directive uses article 100A, must it be used in the next directive?
I believe that the decision to be made by 1 January 1989 regarding long-term summer time arrangements after 1990 should be based on balancing the merits of harmonisation of summer time against the effect that such measures would have on the quality of life for British people, especially in Scotland and the north of England. The important aspects of the quality of life include prevention of road accidents, and other matters that I have referred to. A particular example that. came up in the previous debate was of children going to school in the dark in the mornings.
Some interesting research findings have emerged recently from the Policies Studies Institute. They show that there could be fewer deaths and serious accidents if we were to operate summer time—GMT plus one—in the winter. The research was carried out by Dr. Meyer Hillman, who demonstrated that many lives could be saved with continuous summer time, although mornings would be darker. Dr. Hillman claims that under the existing arrangements during the winter months there are twice as many deaths and serious injuries among adults between 4 pm and 7 pm as there are between 7 am and 10 am. In other words, there is a tendency for more deaths, serious injuries and accidents generally in the evening. He added that there are two or three times as many deaths and serious injuries among children between 3 pm and 6 pm as there are between 7 am and 10 am. Dr. Hillman found that darker evenings are a greater killer in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that Scotland could expect to benefit even more from reform of summer time arrangements. Does the Minister accept these figures?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I make an inquiry because I have not studied the evidence that the hon. Gentleman is citing. Is the analysis that Dr. Hillman has undertaken based predominantly on urban, suburban or rural areas? I imagine that that would make a difference to the findings.

Mr. Randall: I cannot answer the specifics of the hon. Gentleman's question but I am sure that there are hon. Members who can probably comment upon it. I understand that the research was comprehensive. The report shows that the findings would apply to various parts of the country. It was not a pilot study that was carried out in one city. It embraced various parts of the country.
I shall skim through the interim report that was produced by the PSI because I think that it might be of interest to the House. It reveals that some of the benefits included a reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries, a saving in fuel costs, more time for out-door sports, an extension of the tourist season and an opportunity to make all sorts of journeys in daylight. Dr. Hillman observed that journeys in daylight would benefit particularly the more vulnerable groups in the community who are fearful of going out in the dark, especially the elderly. He referred also to schoolchildren, trade with western Europe, a small reduction in burglaries and crime and an improvement in general health and well-being, both physical and mental.
Against these benefits Dr. Hillman lists two disadvantages. The first one is the discomfort and diseconomies of working out of doors in the dark for an extra hour in the morning for people whose jobs require them to make an early start to the day, such as dairy farmers, building


workers, postmen and milkmen. Secondly, those who live in the northern latitudes of the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, would be inconvenienced by the later sunrise in winter. The chief problem would be the general shortage of daylight during the heart of winter, whatever its distribution. I thought the House might find that interesting.
It is also interesting to note that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory believes that it would save lives if British standard time were to be reintroduced on the same pattern as we had between 1968 and 1971. I refer the House to Hansard of 18 April 1988, column 366. If we were to go back to the regime of British standard time, the TRRL estimates that the reduction in the number of accident casualties would be 1,340 during the winter. That is a phenomenally large figure and is highly persuasive.
I believe that what is really sticking in the gullets of many Conservative Members is that the Government seem to be aiding and abetting the EEC in introducing harmonised EEC summer time, irrespective of the wishes of the people, by supporting the use of article 100A of the treaty, which allows majority voting. The amendment put down by various Conservative Members demonstrates their disquiet.
It is important to recognise that most EC member states have no incentive to vote against complete harmonisation. They are not interested in the way in which such measures affect the people of Scotland or the north of England. They think only in terms of the internal market. The summer time experiment which took place between 1968 and 1971 was rejected massively by the House because the people did not want it. Ironically this time the Government have passed the powers to Brussels.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I should be grateful if the Minister would answer some questions relating to an amendment which some of us put down. I am not sure whether it is being considered. I do not really wish to talk about summer time because I find it difficult to understand the views of hon. Members. When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was talking about the dangers, he got a rough ride from some of my hon. Friends. As an older Member, I found that strange. I can well remember that when a Labour Government brought in a measure to extend summer time they were attacked unanimously by the Conservative Opposition on the ground that children's lives would be affected and that it would do a great deal of damage. Views on summer time seem to change with circumstances.
The one thing we know is that people feel deeply about summer time. When I was Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency there was a huge volume of protest when extra summer time was introduced. People care about the issue. Until December it seemed that the House of Commons still had control. We could decide whether we wanted more summer time, less summer time or no summer time.
I hope that the Minister will give us guidance, but what worries me is that it appears that when a decision was made on the fourth directive it was agreed that as from 1990 the Common Market Council, by a majority, could impose a universal time pattern on Europe as a whole. In other words, we in Britain could have a form of summer time which we found unacceptable. Some might think it was a threat to children's lives and some might feel that it was bad for farming or for trade, but it would be imposed on us, whether we liked it or not, irrespective of the views of the Government and of Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will indicate clearly what the score is on the fourth directive. Does article 5 mean that the Council could determine that Parliament was basically irrelevant? Some people say, "They would never do this; they are reasonable people. We are part of the club. We get on very well with them." I counsel caution because unfortunately all the assurances which we have had on these matters in the past have proved to be a sick joke.
I am fed up with hearing about extra trade with Europe when the figures show that, whereas we always had a surplus in trade with Europe before we joined the Common Market, we now have a deficit of £11,000 million. Basically, for every £2 worth of goods we send to Europe, we get £3 worth back. That creates a major problem for the country.
I am fed up with hearing assurances from the Front Bench about the new rebates which we are getting from our contributions and how our contributions are being reduced. As the Government know, this year our net contribution of £.1,500 million is the highest in history and, according to the Prime Minister, is likely to rise another £200 million—because of the recent deal.
I am fed up with hearing all the assurances about the changes which are coming for agriculture but which never come, because spending goes up and up. Despite the assurance we had at the time of the European Council meeting that our contribution would be less because we were taking more of the responsibility for food dumping, and the Common Market would spend less, we see in the

budget passed last week that the amount that will be spent on dumping and destroying food has risen to £221 million every week.
We should be cautious about giving away parliamentary sovereignty in case we regret it. We must remember that, if we give it away, it will be gone for ever.
Is our reading wrong? Is the explanatory note from the Government wrong? Are the papers rushed out by the Conservative party wrong? They all seem to indicate that as from 1990 the European Council—by a majority—can decide that summer time is applied throughout the Community, and that includes Great Britain. It may all work out splendidly. It may be that we will all decide to have what we want anyway, but, on the other hand, it may not. If we take the decision to give away this sovereignty and throw away our power of veto on something that British people, rightly or wrongly, care deeply about, should we not discuss it in the House of Commons and reach a positive decision?
Hon. Members may say that it does not matter because it has happened. Nevertheless, you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and some hon. Members who stayed up late on a Thursday night in July two years ago will remember, that when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office was justifying the Single European Act we were given pledge after pledge that article 100A would not be used to take away rights which had been justified. We questioned him time and again about that. We asked if they would take away powers, and we were told that they would not: article 100A related only to the internal market, to trade and to transport.
We have seen in the 15th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation a carefully argued statement by Mr. Speaker's counsel in which he makes it abundantly clear that it is basically wrong to have this directive done under article 100A. He points out that article 100A is solely on the internal market, and article 100 is appropriate because of the wide nature of these measures.
That is not new. Every directive on summer time has been under article 100, and the only difference, when moving to article 100A, is that we threw away our right of veto if something was unacceptable. Of course, it also gives one more notch, presumably, for those who like to talk about 1992, to say that we have had a harmonising directive.
Mr. Speaker's counsel's advice seems to carry more weight than the Select Committee which has been given some strange advice. The Select Committee gives the impression in its reports of being treated with contempt in this matter, with wrong dates being given and with it being told that something had not been passed, although the European Parliament had discussed it a week ago. The impression is given that the Government are not treating the Select Committee seriously, and that something important has happened without the House of Commons being consulted and without it agreeing.
What can we do tonight? We have a motion, because the amendment has not been selected, just noting the summer time order, which is uncontroversial. That is not the issue. The issue is whether we are giving away a major piece of sovereignty to the European Economic Community.
If this goes through and something new comes in in 1990, people will jump up and down. We saw it happening in this House just now. Labour and Conservative Members are rushing round the House getting people to


sign motions about European passports and saying that it is shocking, wrong and anti-British. That is a waste of time because the legislation went through a long time ago and there is nothing that we can do about the European passport.
My fear is that major pieces of sovereignty are being handed over without the House of Commons being directly involved and that devices are being used—quite wrongly—to put matters into article 100A.
First, by using article 100A, did the first directive take away the right of the power of veto? From 1990 onwards, will the Common Market, by a majority, tell us what summer time we have, whether we like it or not? Secondly, is it not fair, in view of all the assurances that were given during the passage of the Single European Act, that the House of Commons should be asked whether it wants to give away that sovereignty?
Thirdly, what was the matter that my hon. Friend the Minister raised in saying that we are going to ask for an extra year by having a derogation? A derogation is a splendid thing if we want it, but what happens if the Council says, "We do not think that you should have a derogation?" Article 5 seems abundantly clear. Why is my hon. Friend so certain that the derogation will happen if he wants it? Is he relying on the good will of his fellow members, and on the fact that they have always been nice guys before? Under article 100 and article 5 of the fourth directive, it seems that if the Council does not want to give us derogation we simply will not get one.
I have a feeling that not just in this area but in many areas the House of Commons is surrendering substantial sovereignty in such a way that people will later say that a mistake was made. However, it may well be the right decision. It may well be right to let the Common Market decide what summer time applies. However, the important thing is that people should be consulted and that they should be told what is happening.
It is unfortunate that we are discussing a noncontroversial order, along with Community papers, when most of our colleagues do not have the slightest idea about what is happening or about what the papers involve. It is very important that people should be told what is happening when a major decision is being made on sovereignty, and that they do not wake up later and regret it.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue. It may be nonsense and people may be getting upset about summer time for no good reason, but I assure him, as Scottish hon. Members will, that people feel deeply about it because they believe that it involves safety and many other things. If we are passing over such a power, people should be consulted.
Those are my questions, which I hope that the Minister will bear in mind in view of the assurances given to the House of Commons on 10 July when the Single European Act was discussed.
Finally—this is an important point—if the Government take the view, as Mr. Speaker's counsel does, that it is wrong to promote the fourth directive under article 100A, is there anything that they can or that they are willing to do about that?
European constitutions are complicated and it seems to me that, ultimately, if the Commission proposes

something under a particular provision, hon. Members can talk about it—but can they do anything about it? I hope that the Government will do something about it and that it will be possible to reach an agreement. We should safeguard ourselves against the majority of the Council imposing on us something that we do not want. I should like to retain article 100. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that if we simply say that, because it is article 100, article 100A applies, almost any directive on any issue could go through the Common Market under article 100A and we would lose any control or power over it.
Something rather significant has happened and I hope that the Government can give us an assurance that we shall retain some sovereignty apart from the right to argue from what might be a hopeless position

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo the hopes of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), but I am not so sure that the Government are in a position to give the assurance that he sought. Perhaps the people in the Common Market will give us another year, or a semi-permanent derogation year on year, as has happened on a number of other issues, but that is not necessarily the position in law.
We are concerned with the position in law in this semi-legislative Chamber. I say that because the House now has no option in this matter; nor have the Government. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, the matter is now, for the time being at least, being dealt with under article 100A, whereby a qualified majority carries the day.
I was disappointed with the Minister's speech. I know that he has been busy recently. He has been often at the Dispatch Box, and no doubt doing many other things, apart from his constituency duties. That may be one of the reasons for his brief and incomplete speech. The Select Committee, however, has produced two reports on this subject, and there has been correspondence between me, as its chairman, and the Minister, but none of that was mentioned by him. Of course, he had every right not to mention it, but there was about his speech an aura of hoping that someone would not be here tonight. It is not good enough. I am sorry to have to say that. My explanation—charitable perhaps—is that the Minister and his Department have had a great deal to do——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I like to be brief.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps, but not to the point of being incomplete.

Mr. Hogg: I have a great preference for being brief. With the leave of the House, I shall have an opportunity to answer points that have been raised. It seems best to proceed in that way, so that I can reply to any points that the hon. Gentleman may wish to make.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not quite got the point. It is the Select Committee and not I that has put out two reports on this issue. The Minister did not mention them. Whitehall, perhaps because it lacks the power, is not taking notice of the Select Committees of the House in the way it should. What follows will justify that remark.
The attention of the Select Committee was first drawn to this matter at its meeting on 9 December 1987 when it


had before it a memorandum, dated 3 December and signed by Lord Caithness, and the EEC document in question——9584/87, the fourth Council directive on summer time arrangements. I want to read out what the noble Lord said, so that that can be compared in Hansard with what the Minister said:
Although there is growing support for a change to summer time arrangements in this country, a one year extension of the present system, as the Commission now proposes will enable us to commission and complete a major review of summer time arrangements, which will inform our position on negotiations for a long term agreement for 1990 onwards.
That expresses the position more accurately than the Minister did. Would he agree with that?
My second question is: why did we receive this document after the decision had been made in Brussels? Sometimes, in price negotiations and so on, that is necessary and understood, but why did not the Select Committee get this document in time? It was dated Brussels, 11 November 1987
Our second report, HC43xv, dated 17 February 1988, states that the Committee learned that the directive was adopted by the Council not on 7 December, as we had thought, but on 22 December. The report says:
The Home Secretary has now explained that it was not until 27 November 1987 that a firm proposal was received. The Committee notes that the European Parliament delivered its opinion on the Commission's proposals on 20 November 1987".
That shows the discrepancy between the dates, so there was a delay in the first instance.
I wrote to the Home Secretary about the discrepancy between the dates and the matter has still not been entirely cleared up. The matter now appears to be out of the hands of the House, but the Scrutiny Committee did not receive the document until after the decision had been made. There had to be a debate on the order, but it was impossible for the House to debate the matter prior to the decision.
Article 100 has been part of the treaty of Rome since its inception and enables the Commission to make proposals for the extension of the Common Market in matters which are not provided for within the terms of the treaty and, as has been frequently stated tonight, that must be done by unanimity.
Article 100A, introduced as part of the Single European Act, which was taken through the House very quickly under a vicious guillotine, introduces another provision under which, for purposes of the internal market—note the different wording—it is possible for the Council to take a decision by qualified majority which shall be binding on all members.
That provision is capable of qualified majority and all the matters relating to the internal market are also sent round the new circuit of the European legislative round via Strasbourg. In that process, the European Parliament can, provided that it obtains a majority and the Commission agrees, modify such regulations. In other words, legislation under article 100A can attract, and often now does so, amendments from the European Parliament which takes the position of the Council. If it obtains a majority and if it so wishes, it can move amendments directly, and, if the Commission agrees and the decision is not reversed by the Council, it makes the law applicable to this land.
Other than the negotiation powers to which Lord Caithness referred in the memorandum—that is all the

Government have, apart from their vote—the House has virtually no direct part in such a legislative process. No doubt the Minister will question what I have said if I have misinterpreted the issue. Although it is a complex and arcane matter, it is important to the House and the country and I have explained it as well as I can.
The choice between whether legislation should be promulgated under article 100 or article 100A does not lie with the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) quite properly asked why the Government accepted it. As I understand it, the Commission decides on which article of the treaty it shall base its regulations. This is literally foreign territory in legislative terms. The House can legislate and we do not think in terms of legislation being restricted by a constitution, although our legislation is now in European terms.
The European Commission, no doubt believing that this was primarily a matter of the internal market and of transport and business, said that it would use article 100A, but, as everyone in this country will say and as my hon. Friend said, this is a social matter and a matter of opinion, rather than a matter relating to economic issues alone. The analogy with the United States shows that clearly.
Therefore, the choice of article is of crucial importance. Had the Commission continued to use article 100, it would have required unanimity and the whole question of "negotiations" and the Government's position would have been relatively clear. I say "relatively" because they would no doubt have been under pressure, but still the Minister would have been justified in saying that we would probably get a derogation. He could have said that under article 100 we have in effect what he claims is a veto, even if Lord Cockfield would not call it that.
Therefore, we are left with the position that the Government have already agreed. Will the Minister tell us whether, when the matter came to the Council on whichever date it was, the Government voted against it, for it or abstained? The House has a right to know which of those three actions or non-actions the Government took.
The European Council legislates in secret—another great difference between ourselves and that body. The Minister should tell us how he voted. If he did not vote against it, we have no grounds of future objection to article 100A being continually used. Article 5 of the fourth directive says that the unanimity rule for summer time is likely to apply from 1990 onwards. So we appear to have missed out all the way along. Even if the Government did vote against it, there is still nothing that can stop it, other than an appeal to the European Court. We do not know what the European Court would say, but if it were asked to say that article 100A was ultra vires and it should be article 100, it could still come down on article 100A in view of the preamble to the Single European Act which it would probably use in justification.
Finally, I turn to the important annex B to the Select Committee's report written by Mr. Speaker's counsel. It is important enough to conclude my remarks by reading what he said:
The Committee is aware that Article 100A is going to give rise to many questions of interpretation, both before and after adoption of measures based on it. The present case gives an opportunity to consider a particular question of the first importance: precisely what measures does Article 100A allow?
The relevant passage reads:"—


this is from the Single European Act—
The Council shall … adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.'
The internal market is the area without internal frontiers described in Article 8A.
The syntax is not as clear or as elegant as we would expect from, say, our own Parliamentary Counsel; but the long and complex exchanges leading to the Single European Act in general, and Article 100A in particular, militated against good drafting.
Having regard to the patent intention, and after comparing the language of Article 100 (from which Article 100A departs significantly), I offer the Committee this as the true interpretation.
Article 100A empowers adoption of measuress which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Such measure must approximate relevant national provisions.
The papers on summer time show an attempt to read the passage from Article 100A quoted above as if the words 'which have as their object' qualify not the Council's measures but the national provisions. I select just one of several reasons for believing that this is wrong: how could there be any national provisions (certainly in an unharmonised field) which have as their object the establishment or functioning of the internal market (as newly identified by the Single Act)?
That seems to me a conclusive argument why article 100A is not suitable for this particular measure, irrespective of its content, and I invite the Minister to tell us why the Home Office did not put our people in Brussels on guard on that. Surely that was something to which they could have recourse instead of having apparently sold the pass on this matter.
The quotation concludes:
Also, the proposition is advanced that if Article 100 has in the past been used for any purpose, then Article 100A should now be available. This seems logically unsound. Article 100 is directed to the common market—a concept to be interpreted widely in the light of Articles 2 and 3. Article 100A is directed to the narrower concept of the internal market. On the reading I offer, the true question of law on the present case is this: can the measure on summer time validly be said to have as its object the establishment or functioning of the internal market?
I have quoted at length because the House will be invited to comment on further legislation based on article 100A. The Council of Ministers and perhaps the Minister or his colleagues will also be invited in the Council of Ministers to consider legislation under article 100A which the Minister, his colleagues or others might think should be determined under article 100 or some other article of the treaty.
If the persistence with article 100A continues, not only will there be legislative diktat by a qualified majority in Brussels, but there will be direct intervention, by a direct amendment, by an elected body other than this House. That legislation will be applicable in law in the United Kingdom. That has a major constitutional importance. With regard to article 100A, although we have not tampered with the Mace tonight, metaphorically by their actions the Government may have sent it to Brussels—if not direct, certainly by air freight and certainly labelled, "By courtesy of the Home Office."

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I want to contribute briefly to the debate. However, my

brevity on this occasion should not be taken as a sign of the lack of importance attached to the issue in my part of the country—indeed, the opposite is the case. My brevity is more a reflection of the lateness of the hour and the fact that at least one other hon. Member, if not more, wants to contribute to the debate.
William Lyon Mackenzie King, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, once remarked ruefully that the problem with that country was that it had too much geography and not enough history. The problem, if any, with the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is that, of course, we have more than our fair share of both. We certainly have more than our fair share of geography and history in a United Kingdom context and we have more than our fair share of geography within a European Community context. I want to address my few remarks tonight less to the mechanics of the issue within Europe and the Commission, to which previous speakers have referred, and more to the matter at hand—the merit of the issue.
We can be forgiven, as an earlier speaker remarked, for feeling a degree of confusion as is so often the case with measures, drafts and directives of this type that come from Brussels. The Home Office issued a press notice on 31 March the purpose of which was to invite people to respond and participate in the consultative process. It tries to set out the parameters of what we are discussing tonight. It refers to the fact that there are three options under consideration:
There are the continuation of the present position; the harmonisation of the date for ending summer time to bring it into line with the rest of the Community; or the introduction of Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour in the winter, with Greenwich Mean Time plus two hours from the end of March to the end of September. The last option would mean that the United Kingdom would be in the same time zone as EC countries except Greece and Portugal throughout the whole year.
I am sure that that clarifies the issues substantially for all hon. Members present at this time of night. I tend to feel that when we are discussing that type of proposal with that degree of complexity, rather like the Greeks, we are in danger of losing our marbles by approaching it in that way.
In a pragmatic sense, there are two broad aspects of concern for anyone in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in the north of Scotland or, indeed, in Scotland as a whole with regard to the proposal to change the clock.
The first refers to the agricultural community. When summer time was changed between 1968–71, on an experimental basis, it caused considerable difficulty to the agricultural community. I need hardly bring to the attention of the House the fact that, given the climatic variations, the harvest comes later in the Highlands and Islands area than it does in the more favourable climatic environs of the south of England. The agricultural community in the Highlands and Islands would regret the loss of an hour's daylight for harvesting. The farmers would wish their opposition to it to be recorded tonight.
Equally, the more general loss as a result of the moving of the clock and the loss of the daylight time in the morning would cause the agricultural community hardship and difficulty. That is as true of my part of the country as of other parts of Scotland.
Another problem with either of the options, rather than the status quo, is the position of schoolchildren. Just as the agricultural community would have more darkness in the


morning to contend with, so would children going to school. That would affect the safety of children in the north of Scotland, and I hope that that point is not lost on the Government.

Mr. Wallace: Like me, my hon. Friend was one of those children who had to travel in the dark in the morning as a result of the experimental change in 1968–71. I found it unsettling. Is it not also true that, at certain times of the year, children travelling in the dark in the morning have to contend with ice, which is not always the case in the later part of the afternoon?

Mr. Kennedy: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Again, for climatic reasons, the occurrence of ice is that much greater in the north of the Highlands and Islands, and it adds further danger to the children's journeys. Like him, I was one of that lost generation in the darkness of 1968–71. I am sure that some of our political critics will say that neither my hon. Friend nor I have found our way back yet, but we live in hope.

Mr. Wallace: We saw the light.

Mr. Kennedy: We did indeed, and it was the northern lights. I would hate to see the lights going out all over Lerwick, in my hon. Friend's constituency, as a result of this measure being implemented.
I have three other arguments against the change in the status quo. First, there is no reason for Britain to be at a disadvantage in being one hour out of step with the rest of the Community at certain times of the year. If the United States can operate on five different time zones, and if the Soviet Union can operate on 11 different time zones—that will not change under glasnost—there is no reason why one hour's difference should cause us anxiety.
Secondly, the geographical division in Britain is not simply between the north and the south but between the north-west and the south-east. I hope that when considering this matter Ministers will bear that important consideration in mind.
Thirdly, although I am not politically a nationalist, as a Scot, I am nationalistic. Had this debate been taking place north of the border, some of the attitudes—I do not accuse the Minister of this, although it is true of the broad debate both inside and outside the House—that are too easily assumed would be different, because people would know the reality of the position.
I shall end by quoting a curious source to pray in aid, none other than Lord Bruce-Gardyne. Writing in The Daily Telegraphthe day before the matter was debated some years ago, he said:
For the majority of the population BST is a matter of indifference shading into marginal convenience. For the minority—the Scots, the country-dwellers in the north of England, the builders and the civil engineering contractors, the postmen and the farmers—it is a misery and a curse. It requires an effort of imagination for the London commuter who enjoys being bullied by his wife to go and dig the garden when he returns of a winter evening from his office to realise what it means to be a glen farmer …"—
I am not sure what he means by a glen farmer; I think that he means a farmer in a glen—
in my constituency to have to send his small children off on the long journey to school an hour and a half before dawn.
I endorse the sentiment in that article, as I am sure does my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I speak in a personal capacity, because for geographical reasons this issue divides friends in a way

that politics very often does not. I hope that the Government will stick to the status quo, because it is workable, manageable and sensible and for one hour we can dare to be different from our European Community partners without threatening 1992 and the greater cause of political integration.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It would be a shame if the debate was smothered between the views of the Europhiliacs and the Europhobics, because the issue is far more important. Indeed, it is far more useful for us to separate the two issues and examine the case for extended daylight without the burdens of feeling about Europe and the resentment about another Parliament or institution making our decisions for us.
We all agree that the issue must be decided by a free vote of the House. The decision in 1972 to reject the experiment was by a massive majority. Unfortunately, I was not in the House at that time, but hon. Members who were will remember that there was strong public reaction to the experiment and that it was not based on scientific, objective or reasoned analysis. There was strong emotional reaction by the public, especially to an incident a few days before the House voted on the issue. There was a campaign by the tabloid press which published photographs of children wearing armbands and feeling their way along dark country lanes.
Since the vote, which was taken on entirely the wrong basis, there has been a chance to look coolly and objectively at the issue. The weakest reason for changing to extended daylight, to an extra hour, to British standard time and double British summer time, is harmonisation. A person who leaves Brussels airport at 17.45 will arrive at Heathrow at 17.45 and that is confusing. Those who have experience of doing business with the continent raise the serious objection that when they telephone people on the continent they find that they have not arrived or have gone home
There are powerful arguments in the preliminary report by Dr. Meyer Hillman who says that the great advantage, especially for the young and I he old, is in the extended use of leisure facilities in the evenings. Attendance at pensioners' clubs, boys' clubs and clubs for young people always falls off when we lose the extra hour of daylight at the time when we need it most.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the opposition of farmers. However, at least one branch of the National Farmers Union has voted its approval for extended daylight. It is the NFU in the county of Avon. The most powerful reason was proved by a three-year experiment conducted by the Transport and Road Research laboratory. It was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). The firm analysis is a reduction of 580 in the number of fatal and other serious road accidents in a year. Dr. Hillman's final report, which will be released in a few weeks, will firm up that figure. We know that there is a relationship between the number of accidents and mornings and evenings. The ratio is about 4:1. We are talking about a massive saving in human life and human suffering. The Scottish figures show an even more dramatic saving.
I appeal to hon. Members to keep an open mind on the issue. Let us look at the evidence that will come out—it


will be with us in a few weeks—and not mix it up with the European issue of who is finally to make the decision. Let us emerge from the debate when the decision is taken as friends of the light and enemies of the darkness.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am in considerable agreement with what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said. He said that we should approach the evidence in an entirely empirical way. That seems to me to be wholly sound. The hon. Gentleman said also that we should not allow our judgments to be clouded by, for example, prejudice that we may harbour in respect of the Community.
Several hon. Members asked me questions. I shall try to reply to them in the few moments remaining to me. First, I was asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) whether, in my view, article 100A is the correct article. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said, this is a complex legal subject. Therefore, I do not propose to express a concluded view on the issue, if only because I do not think that I am competent to do so. Moreover, I am conscious, as hon. Members have suggested, that the decision on that issue spans several Departments and interests.
First, I am not irrevocably persuaded that article 100A applies to the directive. Clearly, that matter requires further consideration. I most certainly do not concede that the directive is intra vires article 100A. Secondly, the fact that, on this occasion, we raised no objection to the treaty base of the directive—agreeing as we did with the policy included in the directive—does not in any way preclude us from raising an appropriate objection on subsequent occasions and in the context of subsequent directives.
I have been asked—most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East—how we could challenge the vires of the directive and the article if we so choose. Initially, the matter is for the Commission. If the Commission is not prepared to amend a directive, of course, the Council can. But the Council can make that amendment only if it is unanimous. If the Council is not unanimous, the proceedings can be challenged only by way of procedure in the court. That is the precise answer to the question.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West and for Newport, West, asked whether the extension of summer time throughout the year is likely to result in a reduction in road deaths and casualties. The answer is that on the best available evidence it will lead to such a reduction. Chapter 8, page 64 of the review of British standard time published in October 1970 states:
There is little doubt that British Standard Time has led to an overall improvement in road accident casualties although the crude figures of savings of casualties need to be treated with some reserve. The overall improvement seems to have been even greater in Scotland than in England and Wales.
That sentiment no doubt lies behind the campaign currently being mounted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in support of a campaign for the adoption of British standard time, which is summer time throughout the year.
If that be true of standard time, or British summer time throughout the year, as I believe it to be, obviously it is true of double summer time, that is summer time in winter and double summer time in summer. It may be even truer in respect of summer time in winter and double summer time in summer. So we must not mislead ourselves on this one fact. Probably a change of the kind that we have been discussing would lead to a reduction in road casualties. I am not pretending for a moment that that is conclusive, but we need to focus on that as a probable fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked, properly, whether from 1990 onwards the EC, by relying on article 100A, would have the power to impose on us a kind of harmonisation to which we would object. First, I have not conceded and do not concede that article 100A necessarily is the proper treaty base for the directive. If article 100 is the appropriate treaty base for the directive, the veto applies. Secondly, even if article 100A is the appropriate treaty base for the directive, I do not think that the House should be too pessimistic.
First, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Community would seek to impose as from 1990 an immediate harmonisation, because the terms contained in article 5 of the fourth directive are matched in article 5 of both the second and third directives, and derogations were thereafter extended. Secondly, do not forget that we are dealing with qualified majorities, not with absolute majorities. Thirdly, if it is true, as I think it is, that the preservation of our summer time ending date results in a saving of life, I should be surprised if Community countries would be willing or anxious to impose on us harmonisation of the ending date of summer time in the knowledge that that would inevitably result in an increase in road casualties. I do not feel nearly as pessimistic as some hon. Members, even if, which I do not concede, article 100A is the appropriate treaty base for the directive.
There may have been some misunderstandings on the part of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I make no criticism. When we were dealing with harmonisation in this context, the only harmonisation that is being contemplated is the harmonisation of the end dates for summer time. From time to time in the debate it appears to have been implied that the purpose of the Community is to achieve a common time zone throughout the Community. That is not the purpose of the Community. It has never been so expressed, although, as I have already said, one of the options we shall consider is the adoption of a time regime that will bring our time regime into accordance with central Europe time scales.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th March.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5 ) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 30th March, he approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

DEFENCE

Ordered,
That Mr. John Evans be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. John McFall he added to the Committee. —[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Mike Woodcock be added to the Home Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. Jack Aspinwall be added to the Transport Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Holyhead (Government Agencies)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to the debate and for the opportunity to bring to the House's attention some important issues affecting Holyhead. It is the largest town in my constituency, where unemployment, currently at over 20 per cent., is unacceptably high.
I have discovered that Holyhead has occupied a great deal of the House's time over the years. A Select Committee in 1808 considered improvements to the harbour. Two years later an Act of Parliament was passed to give effect to its recommendations. In 1819 a further Act was necessary to enable Telford to complete his suspension bridge, and build the A5 through to Holyhead. Various Government inquiries and Select Committees considered the need for a railway linking Chester and Holyhead. That led to another Act of Parliament in July 1844.
That draws me to the simple but unavoidable conclusion that good communications are vital for a healthy economy. In the last century there was a battle royal between Porthdinllaen and Holyhead for the Irish traffic. To quote a recent publication, the contest was really decided when Telford succeeded in bridging the Menai Straits in 1859.
Thus, good road and rail communications have been, and continue to be, vital to Holyhead. But the era of Telford and Stephenson, however glorious, is now over. We must look for improvements and ask the Government and British Rail for the same level of commitment arid investment as their predecessors produced.
I was informed only a matter of days ago that British Rail is firmly committed to the north Wales line through to Holyhead, I welcome that statement. However, the constant delay in the completion of the station complex is a source of much anger in the town. When the old Station hotel was pulled down some years ago assurances were given by the parties concerned—British Rail, Sealink, then a British Rail subsidiary, and the local authority—that a new station complex costing over £4 million would be built. Indeed, one of my predecessors, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, told me this week that he was given that assurance in 1979. The current plan is more modest, and is believed to cost £2·5 million.
In the intervening years, delay has followed delay, promises have been broken, and the site of the old Station hotel is an eyesore. It is the first sight of Wales that the ferry passenger travelling from Ireland sees, and it is a disgrace.
The local authority, Ynys Mô borough council, has put in a great deal of effort and should be congratulated on its determination. We were told at a recent meeting of the Holyhead Port Users Association that the deal was near completion but that there would be another slight delay. One member of the association was moved to say:
That is what I was told exactly eight years ago.
We must now exert all possible pressure on British Rail to conclude the deal. It will mean so much for the image and morale of the people of Holyhead.
I thank the Minister for receiving a deputation recently which pressed for improvements to the A5 through the island. We were grateful for his announcement that he was


considering the inclusion of the dualling of the A5 to Turnpike Nant near Llangefni in the publication "Roads in Wales 1988." With improvements to the A55 under way, that will improve access to the port.
We were also pleased that the Minister is to have, in his words, "another long hard look" at proposals to deal with the remainder of the A5 through to Holyhead. The expected increase in the volume of heavy commercial traffic from the current level of 37,000 to nearly 100,000 units per annum will place an intolerable burden on Holyhead and the surrounding communities.
The Welsh Development Agency has a vital role to play in developing Holyhead's true potential. It must capitalise on the fact that the Holyhead-Dun Laoghaire route is the shortest sea crossing between Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is a vital factor in these days of fast communications. Ferry operators are now keen to exploit short sea crossings, not only because of the fuel costs involved but because sea travel is more time consuming than land travel by a constant factor of three to one, which gives Holyhead a distinct advantage.
I should like to see the Welsh Development Agency working with industrialists and employers to regenerate the town's economy. Recent developments give me cause for optimism that we could be on the move. These involve projects in the fishing industry, in which the local borough council and the Welsh Development Agency have been active.
I should also like to see drawn up a plan of action with further initiatives to create jobs in sufficient numbers to tackle the underlying problem of the long-term unemployed. I am confident that the Welsh Development Agency, working alongside and in partnership with industry, and on occasion with the local authority, could transform the town's prospects and create prosperity. WDA officers are considering establishing an enterprise company in the area. That is one way to start to tackle our problems.
Tourism is, and will increasingly be, an important industry for Holyhead. The Wales tourist board has recognised the potential and has chosen the town for the site of a permanent regional tourist information office. The staff who run the current temporary office from a caravan have done extremely well under difficult conditions. With over 1 million people travelling annually through Holyhead, the great potential must be realised.
There is also the possibility of running steam trains along the north Wales line during the peak summer period. I understand that the original stumbling block—the lack of a turntable facility at Holyhead—has been overcome. Now that that has been resolved, I hope that the Wales tourist board and BR can between them solve any scheduling difficulties.
I congratulate BR on improving its catering facilities and time schedules, particularly on inter-city trains. However, the quality of the rolling stock could be substantially improved, and such an improvement would be greatly welcome by all, including the Minister, who travel regularly on this route.
Holyhead is a unique community in many ways. It is the most cosmopolitan town in north Wales for its size, and that is due to its seafaring tradition. It is also a close community. It has been bound together by the constant

danger that men and women face at sea. Many families are constantly aware of the fate that can befall their loved ones by working in an unpredictable environment. These harsh realities have evolved a caring and compassionate community. They have faced economic and sometimes social difficulties with fortitude and I believe that the Government, through their agencies, owe it to them to maintain and develop the skills and crafts that have taken generations to evolve.
I am realistic enough to know that any project must be viable if it is to succeed. I know that the omens are good. We must capture the opportunities that are clearly available with better communications, the advent of the Channel tunnel and the town's strategic and pivotal location as Ireland's gateway to England. The A55 and A5 are part of a designated Euroroute. I am prepared to play my role in bringing about this exciting prospect, a I hope that the Government will respond in equal measure.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): As someone who was born and bred in Ynys Môn, I am naturally anxious to see it prosper. I continue to visit the island and am well aware of its problems and opportunities. Indeed, I was there last Friday. I hope to show the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that Government agencies have not been inactive in assisting development at Holyhead.
Holyhead is primarily a ferry port. The multi-purpose roll-on/roll-off ferry service that was initiated by the British Railways Board is now in its 22nd year of operation and the lift-on/lift-off container service for Freightliners is in its 17th year.
There was overall traffic growth over the eight years to 1985 for passengers, passenger vehicles and freight moving through Holyhead. However, the growth stopped in 1986. The port is definitely facing competition from air services, influenced by price deregulation, and the troubles in Ireland have not helped.
However, the consultants' report on Ynys Môn concludes that ro/ro ferry prospects are secure in both the short and long term and that the prospects of securing further development in conjunction with the provision of facilities for Channel tunnel traffic appear good.
Improvements to the ferry and rail terminal will provide new passenger facilities, including a new concourse, car parking, a ticket office and a link bridge to a tourist information centre. Earlier this year, B and I introduced an additional daily service from Holyhead and there are now two daily round trips to and from Dublin. Sealink also operates two daily round trips to and from Dun Laoghaire. A new modern fishing harbour is being provided by Anglesey borough council by infilling an existing dry dock and reclaiming land in an area of high dereliction. Work that will cost about £1 million is well advanced and is expected to be completed this summer.
In addition to nearly £200,000 from the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office is contributing over £300,000 in the form of a fishing harbour grant and an urban aid grant. An application for European regional development fund aid for both developments is expected by the end of the year.
I am glad to say that fish landings have doubled in the period 1979–87.
The hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise the north Wales coast railway line. BR hopes to boost business in the off-peak season by slashing one third off all fares on its hourly services into Chester. The campaign, which ends on 31 May, was publicised in a mail drop into households and advertisements in the press. A further campaign will be considered after the summer season ends.
InterCity services out of Holyhead to London are being increased from six trains to eight in peak summer. These services coincide with boat services in and out of Holyhead. BR says there is no question of running down the line.
Clwyd county council has applied on behalf of Gwynedd, Cheshire and itself for ERDF aid of 50 per cent. of the cost of a feasibility study which it hopes will demonstrate to BR that a case exists for electrifying the Holyhead-Crewe line. BR itself has agreed to co-operate in an advisory capacity with the study. At present the application is still being considered by the European Commission. Of course, at the end of the day, electrification and other investment decisions are matters for BR.
The hon. Gentleman and I discussed the A5 trunk road in Anglesey when he led a deputation from Gwynedd to see me on 13 April. I am well aware of local concern to develop the economy in Anglesey, especially Holyhead, and the desire to develop and improve the A5 trunk road particularly between Llanfair PG and Holyhead. I explained to the deputation and the hon. Member that the Department is looking carefully at schemes to improve the A5 on the island. My Department is, as he said, giving particular consideration to possible dualling between Llanfair PG and Turnpike Nant junction, the turn-off point for Llangefni. Our proposals will be made known when "Roads in Wales 1988" is published.
I must reiterate that the economic case for many of the other proposed schemes is very poor, but we will consider any new evidence of economic benefit to Holyhead from the increased traffic flows.
The application for urban development grant for retail development in Holyhead, which would include improving the A5 at its junction with Kingsland road, is currently being appraised by the Department. It is too soon to indicate the outcome of the appraisal.
The hon. Gentleman referred to unemployment. I am aware of the position. I am glad to say that unemployment in the Holyhead travel-to-work area has fallen by 4·5 percentage points since September 1986 and by 2·3 percentage points over the year to March 1988. Of course, there is still much more to he done, but the trends are in the right direction.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that some of the welcome fall in unemployment has been due to the activity of the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies. The WDA is engaged in a series of measures designed to create the right climate for industrial and economic growth in Holyhead and Anglesey as a whole.
On the property side, the agency plans to build 13 factory units totalling 28,000 sq ft in Ynys Môn; seven of these are to be built in Holyhead. The agency is already dealing with a steady stream of inquiries from companies keenly interested in setting up on the island.
The WDA is funding a number of important schemes to bring land back into productive use under its land reclamation programme. In partnership with the local authorities, it is grant-aiding dredging works at Holyhead

harbour designed to improve facilities for shipping movements at the port. It is also engaged in preservation and renovation works at the former Bon Sauveur convent in Holyhead as part of a planned housing development.
The WDA is seeking opportunities to increase its venture capital activity on the island and is currently processing inquiries received from nine firms seeking investment finance of nearly £300,000. Three of these are from firms in Holyhead.
Over the past three years, offers of regional assistance to firms in Holyhead have totalled £2·7 million, with forecasts of creating over 900 new jobs.
As to the future, the WDA is represented on the Holyhead study group, whose remit is to work out long-term plans for the development of Holyhead. The agency is working closely with the Wales tourist hoard and county and borough councils, and it has commissioned a study to look at the development prospects of the area. The study's findings have been considered and discussed with interested organisations, including the Holyhead Port Users Association. Several of the study's recommendations are now being explored in more depth.
The Wales tourist hoard is also keen to see development at Holyhead. A number of potential redevelopment projects concerning shopping and environmental improvements, which will assist tourism development, are under consideration.
The WTB also provided support in recent years through joint marketing campaigns and over the three years since 1986–87 the board will have supported total advertising expenditure of £150,000. I am sure that the board would be interested in discussing any proposals that the hon. Gentleman might wish to make to it.
Bringing together the various tourism associations which exist within Anglesey is obviously important. The Ynys Môn borough council has already made significant strides in that respect and, with WTB support, has evolved the joint marketing scheme, which now produces a single brochure for the island as a whole. I congratulate it as I understand that the scheme has done particularly well this year.
In that context, the exhibition of Holyhead in the 1990s, opened yesterday in the town library by the chairman of Gwynedd county council, will be a useful pointer to residents and visitors alike. I understand that the exhibition again demonstrates the co-operation between various agencies and the local authorities.
Because we have been very conscious of the needs of Holyhead, we in the Welsh Office have, in recent years, sought to concentrate, as far as possible, the available urban programme resources for the island on the port of Holyhead. Indeed, since 1984–85 almost £800,000 of urban programme allocations have been specifically directed towards Holyhead. I would expect that concentration to continue in future years provided, of course, that the local authorities continue to submit worthwhile applications to the Department.
In the case of the Holyhead leisure centre, our decision for this year took into account the creamery closure at Llangefni, and we felt priority had to be given to the workshop units there with their job-creating potential. All parts of Wales benefit from WTB activities. An additional £250,000 was made available to the tourist board for marketing in early 1988. Since 1983–84 net Government funding of the Wales tourist board has increased by over 90 per cent., with assistance to projects increasing over


threefold. This year, 1988–89, assistance is at an all-time high of £.9·2 million. I am sure that Ynys Môn and Holyhead will benefit from this additional expenditure. There is a proposal, of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, for a major new food store in Holyhead, which is currently being considered for urban development grant support by the Welsh Office. A number of issues remain to be resolved before a decision can be made and officials are in discussion with Gwynedd county council and the developers.
I know that Ynys Mô n borough council has applied to the Manpower Services Commission for approved training organisation status. Responsibility for granting approved training organisation status lies with the MSC. The MSC's director for Wales is still considering the application by Ynys Môn borough council and at this stage I can make no further comment on it.
Apart from its mainstream activities, the Welsh Development Agency is conscious of the need to enhance the environment and job prospects, not just in the towns, but in the countryside as well. Indeed, one cannot think of Ynys Môn or even Holyhead without thinking of the rural landscape there. The WDA has approved grants under the rural enterprise initiative to the tune of well over £100,000 for Anglesey as a whole. Applications for a further £130,000 of assistance have been approved and are awaiting payment.
I think that I have at least succeeded in showing that the Government's agencies have not been inactive. Indeed, they have been helpful, so far as Anglesey as a whole is concerned, in doing their utmost to reduce the high unemployment from which I know that Holyhead in particular suffers.
Today's Western Mail reported some exceptionally good news for the island with the announcement of 150 new jobs being created by the Imperial Metals Corporation of Canada which has decided to commence mining operations centred on Parys mountain. That is an enormous shot in the arm for the area and a clear signal that every part of Wales is now benefiting from the continuing resurgence of the Welsh economy. The future prosperity of Ynys Môn and Holyhead depends crucially on the continuation of the economic revival that we are currently experiencing.
For both the island and Holyhead, the vast improvements that are currently being undertaken to the A55, the north Wales coast road, will in due course bring benefits to Anglesey and to Holyhead by way of supporting not only the tourist industry, but industry in general on the island.
I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that we have the interests of Ynys Môn and of Holyhead very much at heart.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.